KC-X RFP Mk II (merged)

[ORAC]

Links to AWST (Ares) on latest KC-X RFP.

Here It Is: Tanker RFP (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a25f8e44d-8c3e-42ba-9d43-dd14d3aa339c&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Northrop -- 96-98% Chance of a No Bid (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a324932ef-e637-4506-b1bb-84b336a800ed&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Tanker Tea Leaves: Sen. Shelby is Steaming (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aaeabf717-48fd-4cb1-bdd8-d806be520e9e&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

What Vexes -- And Maybe Frightens -- the Tanker Triumvirate (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a3f67564f-4c88-4af7-be58-3d7096555895&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

[Art Field]

That's put the cat among the pigeons, what can they do if EADS withdraws. Interesting to note that all the aircraft will have a receiver capability just like our new tankers will. Oh no!!!!, I forgot, ours will not.

[Flyt3est]

IF NGC are going to pull out, it's really in their interests to do so sooner rather than later. The effect of that will be to leave the door open for Boeing to charge the USAF whatever they like for the plane.

Boeing have been given NGC's pricing structure for the last bid, but NGC do not have Boeing's.

Boeing wrote and currently maintain the software which will be used to determine the fleet effectiveness value for each bidder

The KC-X RFP asks for an aircraft almost identical to the existing KC-135, therefore the additional capability of the A330 is only valid if it's cost is no more than 1% higher than the 767.

I do not see any value in NGC bidding other than one small detail.. All through this process, NGC have protested and claimed bias toward 767. Boeing have always claimed they are happy with the RFP and acquisition process, therefore, if NGC come in with a lower price, then surely Boeing have no grounds for appeal?

[alemaobaiano]

There doesn't seem to be much point in NG/EADS bidding on the RFP as it stands, it's clearly been written to nullify any advantage the KC30/45 demonstrated in the first competition. As NG/EADS are at a disadvantage in not knowing the pricing structure from Boeing, while Boeing has their previous bid details, they would have to submit a ridiculously low price to have any chance. Boeing OTOH can easily calculate any reasonable bid from NG/EADS and simply need to undercut them to to avoid the necessity of actually looking at relative merits.

Their best option is to announce their intention early, leaving the way open for Boeing to submit any price they want and with practically any variant of the 767. As the required standards are equivalent to the KC-135 they wouldn't even have to develop a new variant as they proposed last time, simply dust off the JASF/Italian versions, slap on the price tickets, and laugh all the way to the bank.

The only winners in this are Boeing and their shareholders.

[brickhistory]

The only winners in this are Boeing and their shareholders.

And the US industrial base.

Not an unimportant consideration.

[Flyt3est]

Not true Brick, some research and analysis will show you that the US Industrial base stood to gain either way, only NGC were able to quantify their job creation. Boeing are merely extending the life of an old production line for an old aircraft.

[Squirrel 41]

Brick - some (GOP, no less) Senators would beg to differ.

KC-45 is a more capable aircraft (as they found out last time), so I would humbly submit the major losers are the USAF. Oh, and the poor bloody taxpayers....

S41

[BEagle]

Normally the purveyors of right wing jingoistic cant which would embarrass even a Daily Mail writer, here's something quite sensible from Fox News:

FOXNews.com - Mr. President, Here's How to Save 100,000 Jobs (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/24/lt-gen-tom-mcinerney-air-force-kc-competitive-bid-boeing-northrup-grumman/)

A competitive bid will surely bring the greatest benefits.

By the way, has Boeing yet managed to get the wing-mounted AAR pods to work properly? Solved the buffet and flutter issues? I'm sure the Italians are waiting patiently for their 3 aircraft which Boeing is still using for flight test to be delivered.....

[Flyt3est]

Beagle there are two answers to that well founded question..

1. NO

and

2. Check the Boeing Tanker website, does it show any footage of real aircraft refuelling from wing pods or centreline hose and drogue IAW with the KC-X solicitation?? ( for guidance see answer 1.)

However in their defence the USAF have asked specifically for a limited capability Tanker, so thats why the 767 is a good fit.

[brickhistory]

Gents,

I make no claims on which is the better product. I freely admit to not being qualified to offer such an opinion.

Keeping the US industial base is a national interest however. Regardless of NG teaming with EADS, and some (or even most) of the work being done in Alabama, the net effect would/will be a loss of US capability.

Whether that's inevitable or not is a separate issue.

How much moaning do you see here about the F-35 and/or other primarily US-based platforms being purchased, in cooperation and with much input from, other users - RAF/FAA/RAAF, etc? How the loss of sovereign manufacturing capabilty is a national tragedy?

I'd prefer to avoid that situation for the US.

[Squirrel 41]

Brick,

I don't agree - NG will have the integration, development, T&E capability for the tanker bits, and EADS US will be (or at least would've) been building A330Fs in the US. The US remains fully capable of producing large twins and integrating the tanker bits irrespective of who wins.

A split buy seems v shortsighted - and I note that Fox's "Fair and Balanced" expert is also a consultant to NG.

S41

[Saintsman]

Exactly how much of a B767 is manufactured in the USA?

[acmech1954]

'limited capability tanker' - just put less fuel in a KC 45. :ugh:

[BenThere]

I've always felt the new tanker, as a strategic asset, should be built by an American contractor.

Additionally, the philosophical constraints Airbus imposes through software, limiting aircraft performance, are not suitable during combat extremes.

It seems now the contract is increasingly likely to go to Boeing, as it should.

With 30 years of tanker experience, and a current Airbus airline pilot, I think I'm seeing it right, and I hope the thing goes to Boeing.

If it's any consolation, Airbus makes a superb airliner.

[GreenKnight121]

Exactly how much of a B767 is manufactured in the USA?


By content or value?

By content, ~15% is made in Japan (fuselage), the tail is made in Italy and there are other major components made in the UK. About 65% of the aircraft is made in the US.

By "value", 85% is US (including labor for final assembly, etc).



The KC-45A is ~60% US "by value".

[knowitall]

"I've always felt the new tanker, as a strategic asset, should be built by an American contractor."

last time i checked northrop grumman were american

[BenThere]

last time i checked northrop grumman were american

That's true, but everyone knows it's an Airbus. Can't hide that.

[BEagle]

So which new tanker has Bubba Boeing come up with since the 1950s? I don't include changing engines or avionics in that question.

Yes, they had the KC-50, KC-97 and KC-135. Not much since then though, apart from recycled KC-135s - the KC-10A being a McDonnell Douglas design.

A limited capability tanker? You could dumb down the KC-45A to the KC-767 level if you:

1. Reduced the fuel by at least 20 tonnes (that's 44000 lb to the colonials) - or, if you wanted to use a normal 10000 ft balanced field at ISA/Still-air, make that 35 tonnes / 77000 lb due to the KC-767A's poor ASDA requirement at high AUW.

2. Reduced the size of the underfloor cargo bay and narrowed it.

3. Took out all the seats and blanked off the windows, narrowed the cabin and shortened it, then fitted Urrmerikan 'Rendition-Class' palletised seating.

4. Removed the wing pods.

5. Removed the centreline hose.

But hey, go ahead and let your ignorant redneck jingoistic hor$e**** take precedence over capability for the 'war fighter'....:yuk: If you want a second rate, expensive and unproven design, take the risk and let yourselves be robbed blind by 'ol Bubba Boeing.

[Flyt3est]

Beagle.. you missed the word "Again" from the end of your post :ok:

[brickhistory]

But hey, go ahead and let your ignorant redneck jingoistic hor$e**** take precedence over capability for the 'war fighter'....


Since it's my tax dollars going towards the winner, I will pull for Boeing.

Say, how about that British aerospace manufacturing base?

I'd prefer to learn from other's mistakes.

And no points for creative insults. Were you in a hurry or have standards been permanently relaxed?

[Flyt3est]

Well MY tax dollars are going there too and I will be pulling for job creation in an area hit hard by natural disaster and economic downturn.. The South!!

I'd say we're even right now, therefore the non-mandatory but still relevant creative insults should come into play :ok:

[brickhistory]

Fly3, "creative" being the operative word.

Sadly, I think at least contributor to this thread proves

Aging and Alzheimer?s Both Target Brain?s Key Memory Center, Pitt Study Finds ? UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (http://www.upmc.com/MediaRelations/NewsReleases/2009/Pages/Aging-Alzheimer%E2%80%99s-Target-Brain%E2%80%99s-Memory.aspx)


I take no glee in this fate as it awaits us all. But to see demonstrated proof is a bit sad. :}

[brickhistory]

Guess your earlier description was accurate because this


Airbus KC-30A = French = Goddam un-American = Bad
Boeing KC-767 = Made in America = Our good ol' boys = Good



is pretty much what I had in mind if by "Bad" you mean the overall program management and control not in US hands. I think that is a bad thing in the event of some scenarios.

If by "Good" you meant keeping more of US tax dollars at home instead of flowing into other countries' coffers and keeping a more robust US aerospace industrial base, providing the tanker meets the needs, then I also agree.

And yes, I can see the French have been busy dealing with more important issues -

Nicolas Sarkozy : News : People.com (http://www.people.com/people/news/category/0,,personsTax:NicolasSarkozy,00.html)

[Flyt3est]

KC-767 is a Virtual aircraft, based on 30 year old junk for which the US Taxpayer will be robbed blind, Boeing will fail to deliver against spec and no doubt be late..as usual.. but hey, at least you will be ripped off, cheated and sold short by your kin folks.:ok:

[Flight Detent]

forgive me if I'm wrong here...

Hasn't Boeing already delivered several B767 tankers to the Japanese very, very recently?

For what that comment re "old junk" means to me,
In a combat situation, I would prefer a more conventional, robust, reliable airplane rather than an electronic whiz, which has already proven it's 'reliability record', even in civil use.

Someone mentioned earlier regarding the inappropriateness of the airbus flight control system in a combat sky.

Cheers...FD...:)

[ORAC]

FD,

The Japanese KC-767 has only a boom, no drogue pods. The chronic problem with the Italian tankers is due to the drogues for which, after several years, Boeing cannot seem to find a solution.

The performance of the A330 Flight Control system seems more than adequate to every other Air force buying it, and it does seem to be the system of choice for those currently looking for and buying tankers.

[BEagle]

The EMC susceptibility of Airbus FBW systems was assessed years ago. It is not a problem.

If you really think that you will need to throw tankers around in 'the combat sky'...:rolleyes:... then reconsider your Conops first, perhaps.

The only times I've had to manoeuvre a tanker abruptly were due to ill-disciplined 'coalition' fighters which had failed to stick to their assigned levels in the ROZ.

The KC-767J is a very basic aircraft with just a boom and is only a converted -200ER. It was delivered 2 years late, for which Boeing had to pay a penalty fee. In May 2010, it will be 5 years since the first Italian KC-767I, also a converted -200ER, was supposed to have entered service. The KC-767J and KC-767I have a max fuel capacity of about 72 tonnes - about the same as the in-service A310MRTT.

The definitive KC-767A has yet to be built, let alone flown. If you can find a runway long enough in a country flat enough, it will allegedly have a max fuel capacity of about 91 tonnes - way, way less than that of the A330MRTT. The Italians, despite having already extended the runway at Pratica de Mare, are already concerned about the max fuel their yet-to-be-delivered KC-767Is will actually be able to take-off with in the Mediterranaean summer...:hmm:

Whereas Airbus tankers are already flying and are in service with a number of air forces, Boeing still hasn't managed to sort out the wing pods or centreline hose system - pretty basic elements of a tanker aircraft.

There's quite a lot of risk attached to Bubba Boeing's Frankentanker, it would seem.

[Brain Potter]

I have flown tankers extensively and have experience in Boeing and Airbus airliners. I believe that the issue of Airbus flight control software in 'combat' is a red-herring.

On a day-to-day basis, tankers are not flown any more aggressively than airliners and the crews are not experienced in handling the aircraft in anything other than a normal manner. With the flight control protections of an Airbus, the worst pilot on the fleet can, aggressively and confidently, apply maximim stick deflection, roll to 67 degrees of bank and achieve a steady 2.5g load factor. A pilot in a conventional tanker aircraft that attempts to manouvre to these parameters will take much longer to achieve them and then won't be able to hold them, or will place themselves in more danger by exceeding aircraft limits or their own ability

I completely agree with BEagle point about CONOPS and I don't believe that emergency manoeuvreing ability is something that is very relevant when comparing the types. However, if you do envisage this attribute as important then do not regard the Airbus flight control system as an impediment that prevents the pilot from wringing maximum performance from the aircraft. Rather it is an advantage that allows pilots to confidently fly the aircraft to limits that are more than adequate for this role.

[LowObservable]

With winglets, higher gross weight and stiffness to handle the pods, the Boeing KC-X wing will be internally pretty different from any 767 wing (assuming they don't go 777). A little bit of risk....

[ECMO1]

Let me be up front with respect to my comment. I am an American taxpayer. I am a Boeing shareholder. And I have tanked off of numerous tankers from various nations in the past.

My major problem is that Boeing thinks they are the only game in town when it comes to big wing military aircraft. They have gotten fundamentally lazy and are not producing value for money. They are still pretty good in the civil market because the airline companies don’t give a flying hoot if you’re an American company or not, it is the product that matters. Boeing can’t go running to Congress if United Airlines picks an Airbus.

That isn’t true with respect to military projects. The USAF was supposed to have converted a substantial amount of their tanker fleet to handle probe and drogue, based on an agreement made back in the Reagan years, to support the Navy/Marine Corps, plus NATO aircraft. We see how far that has progressed. Personally, I don’t see how the Boeing proposal will give the taxpayers the best value for money, nor give the actual aircrews the best support, especially since it is now set up to be a sole source contract. This situation is just a set-up to plunder the taxpayer with no reason for Boeing to devote its best talent to the problem, since they have no real competition and lots political cover from Congress.

I also see this “preservation of the US industrial base” as a bit of a red herring. Boeing and Northrup Grumman are basing their proposals on civilian airliners. Is Boeing going to quit making airliners if they don’t win? No. Is this a version, which is brand new and opening up technology? No. Will Boeing open a new production site if they win? No. If Grumman had won, would it have expanded aircraft manufacture in the US? Yes.

Bottom line based on this RFP: Boeing has better politicians and advertising, not a better product.

[Flyt3est]

One message is clear from this thread, and I find it troubling. I, like most on here, take people who speak with obvious understanding of a given subject at their word and whilst I might not agree, it is usually pretty clear who is speaking from a genuine position of knowledge and who is talking flannel.

The troubling part here is that those who are clearly "in the know" by virtue of experience, and/or direct involvement with either or both companies seem to be in agreement on two points;

1. The KC-767 does not yet exist as a platform. Various guises exist with limited functionality available which falls way below the requirements of KC-X, but the the KC-767A is not a qualified aircraft and is years behind schedule.

2. Boeing will win KC-X.

I recently attended a conference on the subject where one speaker made a flippant remark that the GAO criticized the DoD after the last failed attempt at running this competition for failing to include the clause in the RFP that "Boeing must win". Good joke.. or was it??

I see dark clouds ahead.

[D-IFF_ident]

I'm confused by the apparent lack of trust of fly-by-wire systems suggested by some previous posters. Are you saying that Airbus specific FBW technology is lacking or FBW architecture in general? If the former, why; what specific points do you feel are unsafe? If the latter, why; what, for example, do you find lacking in the F-22, the F-16, or the C-17?

[Flyt3est]

Since this is a rumour thread, I have very good intel which suggests Northrop have indeed decided to "No-bid" the KC-X. This has been rumour and hearsay for a few weeks, but I believe as a result of internal meetings, they are coming down on a no bid and may have officially decided that yesterday, albeit there is no public statement yet.

Anyone care to confirm or deny my intel?

[ORAC]

Air Force Times: Pentagon says it may extend tanker-bid deadline (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/03/airforce_tanker_extension_031810w/)

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has confirmed that Department of Defense officials are considering extending the deadline for bids in the Air Force’s aerial refueling plane competition, Agence France-Presse reported.

Sources on Capitol Hill and elsewhere suggested last week that such an extension might be in order after EADS, the European defense and aerospace giant, signaled its interest in bidding. Morrell later confirmed this to Air Force Times.

“The Department has received notification from EADS North America indicating possible interest in competing for the Air Force’s KC-X Tanker and we would welcome that,” Morrell said in an e-mail Thursday. “Consistent with our commitment to conduct a fair and open competition, the Department invites proposals from all qualified contractors and, if necessary, we would consider a reasonable extension to the RFP deadline.”

Morrell went on to say that such extensions aren’t unusual. He said the Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance aircraft, the VH-71 presidential helicopter, the Littoral Combat Ship and the Air Force’s Small Diameter Bomb and others had received similar extensions.

EADS’ participation in the $35 billion KC-X tanker program was placed in jeopardy earlier this month when U.S. partner Northrop Grumman announced that it would withdraw from the competition. Northrop officials contend that the Pentagon’s latest revised bidding guidelines favor rival Boeing.

EADS notified DoD of its possible interest, Morell said, and Pentagon officials “would consider a reasonable extension to the RfP [Request for Proposals] deadline.” The deadline is currently mid-May.

Earlier in the day, EADS Chief Executive Louis Gallois told reporters that his firm may still be interested in bidding for the program. Gallois said the current deadline set for requests for proposals for the tanker contract was too short for EADS to find another partner to develop a proposal with.

“Is it the end of the story? It’s not in our hands. It’s in the hands of the Pentagon,” he said.

[Flyt3est]

I have just had it confirmed from a very reliable and very senior source that Airbus Military ARE indeed bidding for KC-X.

I wonder how Mr Obama and his bubba :Ebuddies in Everett are enjoying breakfast this morning??

[D-IFF_ident]

Perhaps another partner:

EADS-NA Says Not Comfortable Priming KC-X Contract | Defense Procurement News (http://www.defenseprocurementnews.com/2010/03/12/eads-na-says-not-comfortable-priming-kc-x-contract/)

Perhaps another aeroplane:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_K-X_MACK-type_Concept_lg.gif

:cool:

[ion_berkley]

Russian Firm to Bid on Air Force Tanker Program - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904575132081360882728.html?mod=WSJ_bus iness_whatsNews)

[Graybeard]

The IL-96 is about as old technology as the 767, last I checked.

As a US taxpayer, I want the most bang for the buck:

*The USAF wants a KC-135 sized refueler.

*Tankers get 3-400 hours a year utilization - a tenth that of airliners.

*Price is driven by competition.

-------

The 757 is about the same size as the KC-135. There are plenty of used 757 out of the 1,000 built that are parked and available for a few $Million each.

There are dozens of MRO, Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul organizations around the world who are capable of tanker retrofit, meaning the price will fall to the level of the dumbest competitor.

Used A310s are available. That would be an alternate tanker that is already proven.

Converting airliner to tanker is not rocket science, and the planes would be available quickly and at a fraction of cost of new.

We don't need a tanker to last 10 years, let alone 20 or 50, unless we need to do aerial refueling of UAVs.
--------

What is the biggest obstacle to converted tankers? Lower cost means less money for lobbyists.

GB

[D-IFF_ident]

I'm not sure converting previously owned frames would be more economical than building from new in this instance. If you wanted to make a tanker to sell AAR time to the various militaries of the world currently enjoying a 'capability holiday', a la Omega, then converting retired airliners does work. But to meet the RFP there might be too many alterations required. E.g. NVG compatible flight deck (not sure how the 787 screens will do there...), 1200 USG/Min offload via the boom etc.

Ulrick has the right idea until the KC-X fiasco is sorted-out, but when it is I expect new build aircraft will be part of the winning proposal.

[BEagle]

The USAF wants a KC-135 sized refueler

Size as in airframe or capability?

About 5 years ago, I did some work for the multi-national ART group. One basic issue was to compare various tanker aircraft. But we refused to accept manufacturers boasts, so told the national teams to furnish the relevant information for a simple scenario I defined:

Take-off, landing and alternate: 10000 ft balanced field, SL/ISA /Still-air.
Task: Take-off, fly a 4 hr AAR mission, land with 1 hr until tanks dry.
Query: Available offload.

Well, on figures provided by national teams, the KC-767 came in at only 1.1% better than the A310MRTT - and was 12% worse than the KC-135R. Interestingly, the first thing the spams asked was "Can you make that 12000 ft balanced field?" - to which I said "No!".

And the A330?

A massive 65% better than the KC-767, or 45% better than the KC-135R!

So, are The Messiah and his bubba buddies really going to try and hoodwink the USAF into buying something less capable than the jet it is supposed to replace?

Only In America could such a thing happen, it seems....:hmm:

[Graybeard]

BEagle: A massive 65% better than the KC-767, or 45% better than the KC-135R!


And how does that compare to the KC-10A? The USAF bought 60 of them at a "bargain" price so McDouglas could keep the DC-10 production line alive in the early 1980s. The AF has reported that the KC-10A is too large, which would imply the A330 is also too large.

It doesn't matter which new airplane fits the mission better. A mix of used airplanes can do the job sooner at much lower cost. That mix includes the A310.

GB

[BEagle]

The AF has reported that the KC-10A is too large, which would imply the A330 is also too large. Not at all. Certainly the KC-10A is 'too' large for most mission requirements - according to the figures we were given, it offered 85% more fuel in the standard scenario than the KC-135R. Whereas the figure for the A330 was 45%.

However, when required to carry passengers, the KC-10 can only carry 75 and the KC-135R only 53. In windowless 'Rendition Class' squalor.

The next generation tanker transport needs to be properly multi-role. Although offering 12% less fuel then the KC-135R in the standard mission scenario, the KC-767 can at least carry 192 passengers. But again, ol' Bubba Boeing seems insistent on 'Guantanamo Tourist Class' levels of passenger comfort.

Both the A-310MRTT and A-330MRTT are true wide body airliner derivatives. In fact they both have the same 222" cabin cross-section. Which is wider than the KC-767 by about 1 seat - so they can both carry paired LD3 cargo bins. Unlike the KC-767 which cannot. In all-passenger fit, the A-310 can carry 214 passengers, but when configured as tanker, this reduces to 57. The A330 offers the best capabilities without a shadow of a doubt - up to 111 tonnes of fuel and up to 293 passengers, so the optimum balance can be achieved for the specific mission. Plus, of course, all Airbus designs have normal airline standards of comfort and safety.

Which is why the A330MRTT has now been acquired by several nations. The A310MRTT customer nations have no 'boom' needs, hence the aircraft is the right size for their multi-role tanker transport requirements. Nations with more modest tanker requirements might consider the A400M or perhaps the KC-390 if they have a parallel tactical transport requirement.

A mix of used airplanes can do the job sooner at much lower cost. Not really. Operating several different types has a distinct disadvantage in terms of training and support - the only advantage being that a mixed fleet would be less susceptible to a single point failure risk. The cost of modifying and certificating an old airliner is significant - particularly if you include a boom and its operator. Which is why the OmegaAir tankers don't have booms.

Hence a 50/50 split of KC-767 and KC-45A might yet be the best option for both the USAF and the politicians.

[Algy]

The FBW argument shows the true desperation of Boeing's position. I wrote this two years ago (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2008/02/least-persuasive-kcx-tanker-ar.html), 20 months before I was being paid by Airbus Military as I am now.

[D-IFF_ident]

Looks like Conklin & De Decker demonstrated that an aircraft with a 30% higher MTOW burns only 24% more fuel, so they proved that the A330 is 6% more economical.

Lies, damned lies and statistics; all irrelevant because the KC-X will be bought based on politics, not capability. :ugh:

[BEagle]

Or, to put it another way, D-IFF_ident:

To match the offload of the KC-45A using our test scenario, you would need 1.65 KC-767s. If a KC-767A has a burn rate of 76% of that of the KC-45A (which frankly I doubt), you would thus burn 1.65 x .76 = 1.254 the fuel the KC-45A would burn.

25.4% more fuel burn, twice the crew, twice the maintenance costs - does that really make sense?

The intelligent customer chooses Airbus!

[Graybeard]

All the arguments about tankers hauling cargo or troops are worthless. The USAF doesn't even want any more C-17. Civilian airliners have been hauling cargo and troops for the US Mil for more than 50 years, at a much lower cost than USAF planes.

The prudent customer buys used airliners and converts them to tankers, and puts the $Billions saved into UAVs.

Now there is a career path for all those kids playing Microsoft Flight Sim.

EADS should be moving into UAVs, if they aren't already. Seen the Hexacopter?

GB

[Flyingblind]

Thought this was a done deal?

EADS Considers Bidding Alone For USAF Tanker - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4546449&c=AIR&s=TOP)

[Flyt3est]

UK confirms Rivet Joint: key.Aero, Military Aviation (http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=1798&thisSection=military)

Only the UK MoD would buy 3 airframes from the Yanks which are being retired primarily due to perceived danger of structural failure..

There is logic in here somewhere right?

[ORAC]

EADS ‘Will Bid,’ Sarkozy Says (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/30/eads-will-bid-sarkozy-says/)

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said today that the Franco-European defense giant EADS “will bid” on the tanker contract after receiving assurances from President Obama that the competition will be “free and fair.”

And in what looks like a clear signal to EADS that the Pentagon will seriously consider opening the bid to EADS, the Air Force Chief of Staff told my colleague Andrea Shalal-Esa of Reuters that, “they have to say they’re serious and then the department will decide how much time to allow.” He spoke to Andrea at an event hosted by Air Force Association.

“If you say to me that the competition will be free and fair and transparent, then we say EADS will bid and we trust you,” Sarkozy said at a joint White House press conference. Obama said that Sarkozy’s “trust is justified.”

And, just in case anyone wondered whether Obama was stepping on Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ procurement toes with his declaration, the president made it clear he was not.

“The Secretary of Defense makes procurement decisions. The president does not meddle in these decisions and that’s a long-standing policy, so I maintain an arms-length approach. I have assurances from Secretary of Defense Gates that, in fact, the rebidding process is going to be completely transparent and completely open and a fair competition,” Obama said.

Obama’s declaration comes after major European leaders blasted the United States for being protectionist after Northrop Grumman dropped its bid for the KC-X tanker. Even Britain’s Gordon Brown said at the time that he was “disappointed.” The administration, keenly aware of the importance of its allies’ help in Afghanistan, clearly decided to make the nicest noises possible during Sarkozy’s visit.

The question to be answered — after EADS decides whether to bid or not — is whether EADS North America will place the bid or the company will look for a large American partner like Lockheed or another larger company like Raytheon. I’m skeptical that Lockheed would take the political risk of aligning itself with EADS on this program (but not on the A400M). Any other American company would also have to grapple with the prospect of angering Rep. Norm Dicks, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, and a host of other powerful lawmakers. Whether EADS North America would be sufficient political cover for EADS is open to question.

[kiwi grey]

I wonder how pi$$ed-off they're feeling, knowing that the USAF almost certainly won't be allowed to buy not-a-Boeing, this time?

If I was EADS, and feeling really septic about the whole situation, then how about:

Bid an absolutely bog-standard RAAF (or UAE) aircraft, off their existing production lines
Make absolutely no concessions to additional US content, only fit US GFE different to the other models
Bid an almost-no-profit price, and shout out about how cheap it will be
Point out loudly and often they can have the first aircraft Real Soon Now ™, not in quite a number of years time
make a lot of noise about how it's a real aircraft, no R&D risk at all
Then when Boeing get the deal anyway, they haven't wasted any engineering money, and to meet their price (with a significant R&D effort) Boeing's eyes would be fair watering. :E

And if per chance they do get the gig, well they've put Boeing out of the tanker market which is a happy side-effect. :E:E

[NURSE]

I also would have thought that ownership of a strike aircraft by a friendly nation which contributed to the devlopment of that aircraft would have alloed full access to all aspects of that aircraft including software.
I wonder when the next defence review happens will all this be taken into account by many European nations and they suddenly discover JSF isn't up to spec or is to expensive for what they are getting?
Interesting since the EADS descision to pull out of KC-X new life has been breathed into A400M
.

[Flyt3est]

Kiwi Grey -

a couple of good points there.. The Boeing propaganda machine is actually pretty good, and it's an area where EADS fell down.. They should be making a hell of a lot of noise about the clear advantages they can offer over the 767, god only knows why they don't. :confused:

[busdriver02]

Kiwi, you may have made the first euro centric comment about EADs and tankers that makes any sense. If EADs offers the 310 variant at a bargain based price that Boeing has no hope of beating, that may be their best bet. In other words, go for good enough and a lot cheaper rather than the best but very expensive.

[Jig Peter]

The A310 line's been shut for some time now, so it would be hard top start it up again just for this "deal" ...
Big B's advertising of the 767 as "operational" in an Avweek pop-up is surely worth a "misleading publicity" lawsuit ???

[Flyt3est]

There's a difference between "misleading" and "Lying".. Unfortunately for Airbus, Boeing are absolute masters at the former.

[busdriver02]

310? Well I claim no knowledge of tankers, I really meant just offering an off the shelf tanker in current production that offers nothing above and beyond the required spec. Maybe that ship has already sailed, beats me.

[brickhistory]

And if per chance they do get the gig, well they've put Boeing out of the tanker market which is a happy side-effect.


And there's nothing like a nation voluntarily giving up a strategic indigenous capability and being beholden to others

I wonder if that's ever been done before?




Successfully, I mean...

[ORAC]

And there's nothing like a nation voluntarily giving up a strategic indigenous capability and being beholden to others :hmm:

NASA green lights April 5 launch of Discovery (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100328-261221/NASA-green-lights-April-5-launch-of-Discovery)

WASHINGTON--NASA gave its thumbs up Friday to launch the space shuttle discovery on April 5 with its seven-member crew, including a Japanese astronaut, to the International Space Station (ISS).......

Discovery's flight will be the second shuttle mission of the year. Only three will remain before the shuttle program shuts down for good at the end of this year.

US space missions to the ISS will be flown on Russian Soyuz spacecraft until the shuttle's successor can take off by 2015 at the earliest.

[brickhistory]

ORAC, indeed.

My point still stands as the "successfully" part is still to be demonstrated during the period (will it be permanent? But that's a separate thread) of no US manned access to space capability.

[Graybeard]

Tankers get about 10% of the utilization of airliners. Half life airliners will last as long as needed when converted to tankers. Sooner, cheaper, better, and they can be converted by MROs, Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul companies anywhere in the world, cutting both Boeing and EADS out of $Multi-Billion profits.

EADS bet on the wrong horse in 2008, putting lobbyists to work on McCain's campaign staff. Justice is a bitch.

GB

[ORAC]

AWST (Ares): USAF KC-X Bid Deadline Extended 60 Days (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a8c60dd4c-d384-4905-98ef-d5c451731b1a&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

The Pentagon will extend the deadline for bids for the USAF KC-X to July 9, another 60 days for industry to prepare proposals. The move comes as EADS has leaked its interest in bidding for the beleaguered aerial refueling tanker program against Boeing.

“We consider 60 days to be reasonable in this case,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell just told reporters there. The Air Force will compress its bid evaluation period, so it can still award a contract this fall as planned. Morrell said such an extension would not come without serious expectation of dueling bids. Separately, one industry consultant told Aviation Week this week that EADS officials were busy preparing a bid..........

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is not amused, but Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said it was right on.

"This is completely unacceptable," Murray said minutes after the press briefing ended. "This extension means that we are once again bending the rules for a company that has refused to play by them. Holding the door open to an illegally-subsidized foreign company is the wrong move for our men and women in uniform, our workers, and our economy."

Shelby praised the Pentagon. "A sole-sourced contract would have served only Boeing's interests," he said. "The presence of a competitor better serves the interest of our warfighters and American taxpayers. It is my hope that EADS will be able to offer a competitive bid, despite the fact that the RFP has been skewed toward Boeing from the beginning."

EADS Statement Regarding KC-X Proposal Deadline Extension (http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/EADS-Statement-Regarding-KC-X-Proposal-Deadline-Extension-1141254.htm)

ARLINGTON, VA--(March 31, 2010) - EADS North America has issued the following statement regarding the Defense Department's offer to extend by 60 days the proposal deadline for the Air Force KC-X aerial refueling tanker competition:

"Since the Department of Defense indicated their interest in EADS' participation as prime contractor in the KC-X tanker competition, the company has carefully assessed the many requirements necessary to participate. We have firmly indicated that a 90-day extension would be the minimum time necessary to prepare a responsible proposal for this $40 billion program. We will consider the Department's decision to offer a 60-day extension."

[ORAC]

AW&ST (Ares): Tanked Up (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ac0d36370-74d9-4db7-a8f0-902fdf2b4ccc&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/10/313f42f7-d8ef-4cae-bacc-ab814377729a.Large.jpg

The flight test program required for certification of the Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport hose-and-drogue refueling system has been completed by Airbus Military. The conclusion of the tests clears the way for Spain’s national institute for aerospace technology (INTA) to certify the aircraft - for daylight refueling operations - during the course of the summer, according to Airbus. INTA is the military certification agency for the MRTT.

The A330 MRTT is fitted with the Cobham 905 hose-and-drogue refueling system. Flight testing of the Airbus Military Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS) goes on, with Airbus suggesting this will “be completed shortly.” An Airbus A310 has also been used as a demonstrator in the development of the boom technology.

The Royal Australian Air Force is now scheduled to begin to take delivery of its five A330 MRTTs later this year, according to Airbus. The MRTT aircraft is also on order for the UK, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

The A330 MRTT received civil supplemental type certification from the European Aviation Safety Agency in March.

[Algy]

Game on again... (http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/tanker.html)

EADS press release:

EADS North America intends to submit proposal for U.S. Air Force tanker
Leiden, 20 April 2010

EADS North America announced today that it intends to submit a proposal on July 9, 2010 for the U.S. Air Force’s tanker modernisation programme and will offer the KC-45 — the most capable, American-built solution that is flown, proven and in production now.
EADS North America is progressing in discussions with potential U.S. partners to build a winning team in order to provide the most capable, best value solution to the Air Force.
The KC-45 is the only aircraft flying today that meets the U.S. Air Force’s tanker requirements as outlined in its KC-X Request for Proposal (RFP). The KC-45 builds on the EADS-based tanker that was previously selected in 2008 by the Department of Defense and that has won the last five consecutive tanker competitions worldwide.
“We will offer a modern, more capable tanker in response to the Defense Department’s decision to encourage competition for this major taxpayer investment,” said EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. “Our KC-45 is the only real, flying, low-risk solution that today meets the demanding Air Force air refueling requirements and is actually in production now. That fact is critical because our warfighters deserve a true best value solution.”
EADS North America will build and modify the KC-45, along with A330 commercial freighters, at an EADS North America/Airbus production facility to be constructed in Mobile, Alabama. The KC-45 programme and aircraft production/modification center will create and support tens of thousands of high-value American jobs while making a long-term investment in the nation’s economy at a time when other aerospace companies are outsourcing production overseas.
“This tanker competition is all about the warfighter and the aircraft that most successfully meets their requirements. The KC-45 offers what the Air Force
- 2 -
needs today: a modern military tanker that is in production now with deliveries beginning this year,” said Sean O’Keefe, EADS North America Chief Executive Officer. “Not only does the KC-45 offer the best value and a huge capability advantage over the competition, it also will support tens of thousands of jobs across America by expanding our nation’s industrial aerospace capacity.”
The KC-45 is the U.S. military version of the proven A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT). To date 28 aircraft have been ordered by four U.S. allies. The MRTT has transferred more than 265,000 lbs. of fuel to a range of military aircraft – from F-16 and F/A-18 fighters to the E-3 AWACS – using the same refueling systems offered on the KC-45.
“Our aircraft has demonstrated its unparalleled capability by refueling a variety of military aircraft utilizing both boom and hose and drogue systems, as well as by operating in the receiving position. That’s a statement our competition can’t make,” said Crosby.
The Royal Australian Air Force will receive the first A330 MRTTs later this year. Additional aircraft are in production or undergoing mission-equipment outfitting for the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
“We’re progressing forward in discussions to expand the ranks of our nearly 200 current U.S. suppliers, some of which are joining us for today’s announcement,” continued O’Keefe.
At the heart of the KC-45 is the most capable aerial refueling system operating today. The aircraft’s fly-by-wire Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS) has a demonstrated fuel offload rate of 1,200 U.S. gallons per minute – the only system which meets the U.S. Air Force’s requirements without further modification. The system’s proven all-electric fly-by-wire technology ensures enhanced controllability and safety that greatly aids the boom operator and receiver aircraft's pilot.
The KC-45 also carries an all-digital hose and drogue system for probe-equipped aircraft. The under-wing refueling pods are the most modern in service today, with the capability to deliver up to 420 gallons of fuel per minute through 90-ft.-long hoses at refueling speeds from 180 to 325 knots. The KC-45 will also feature a modern fuselage refueling unit, common with that of allied MRTT users such as the United Kingdom.

[ORAC]

So, EADS has announced it will bid, and will be the Prime Contractor as attempts to get L3 and/or Raytheon to take the role have not succeeded.

AW&ST: EADS Is Officially Prime On KC-X Bid (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2010/04/20/awx_04_20_2010_p0-221189.xml&headline=EADS%20Is%20Officially%20Prime%20On%20KC-X%20Bid)

[Flyt3est]

Sean O'Keefe CEO of EADS NA is already stating that Airbus strength lies in the fact that a lot of risk in the KC-45 has been mitigated during the protracted KC-X Acquisition program through flight development of the A330 MRTT, meanwhile Boeing are publicly whining about illegal subsidies and how Airbus can accept more financial risk than they can, therefore the competition is unfair.. boo hoo. I just get the distinct impression that EADS are taking the approach that the US DoD laid out the acqusition criteria to favour Boeing, but they are going to take those very criteria and stick them somewhere shaded and uncomfortable at the US DoD.. Good luck to them:ok:

[BEagle]

EADS North America were in a "Cannot confirm nor deny" mode at ARSAG when I suggested that the RFP extension meant that the game was back on for the KC-45A.

I got some frosty looks when talking in a stage whisper to a chum about the enormous winglets which Boeing's NoGo Tanker model has now sprouted. "Presumably the latest desperate attempt to solve the KC-767's flutter and buffet issues", quoth I...:E

Meanwhile, the Italians wait...and wait...and wait.....

[Flyt3est]

After all the Pro-Boeing lobbying, public mud slinging / general whining and the alleged political intimidation of US Defence companies considering teaming with EADS from Senator Norm "Boeing" Dicks, Defense appropriations chairman, I will laugh my boom off if EADS low-ball it and beat Boeing on price.. It will be no more than Boeing deserve. :}

[Less Hair]

So will they do it entirely by themselves or will they team up with NG again as rumours claim?

[ORAC]

Subject already covered in the "KC-X RFP Mk II" thread.

[knowitall]

Bearing in mind the relative development states of the two aircraft a dual buy could prove.........interesting!

when are the next set of congress/senate elections?

[Spadhampton]

...or heads will roll this midterm election IMO. They just need a token competitor to make it look good, considering the crap that was stirred up.

[Rigga]

...too much money to ignore for a principle.

[GreenKnight121]

Kinda like in 1954... when, during the competition for the USAF's first purpose-designed jet-powered tanker, they decided to buy a few "interim aircraft" and placed an order with Boeing for 29 KC-135s... and a few weeks later added 88 more to the order.

They then (in 1955) named Lockheed as winner of the contract (over the Boeing KC-135) and awarded funding for a prototype... and in the same statement announced they were ordering 169 more KC-135s "to hold us over until the Lockheed tanker is ready for production".

Eventually, the USAF canceled the Lockheed tanker altogether.


I can see the USAF awarding Boeing the contract, but ordering some KC-45As "as interim aircraft to hold us over until the Boeing tanker is ready for production"... and, as Boeing experiences the inevitable delays, ordering a few more... and a few more... and eventually canceling the Boeing contract.




The story of the Lockheed tanker is about 3/4 of the way down this article:
AmericanHeritage.com / Gas Stations in the Sky (http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/4/2004_4_10.shtml)
They started with the CL-291 design, then went to the CL-321 design.
The KC-135 had 4xJ57 engines which produced 10,000 - 11,000 lb.s.t, while the CL-321 had 4xJ75s of 15,000 - 17,000 lb.s.t.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/CL-291-1.gif

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/CL-321.gif

[BEagle]

Thanks for that interesting historical snippet, GreenKnight 121. I didn't realise that Lockheed was involved in the original SAC tanker competition.

I reckon there's more than a hint of C-141 in some of the CL-291.

It would have been interesting to know how those swept wings would have behaved at the low speeds used for AAR....:\

Interesting that no-one, apart from the original Italian and Japanese customers, has expressed any interest in the KC-767. It made eminent sense for the Japanese to have a boom-only tanker with a lot of commonality with their 767-based AWACS, but the Italians are rather tight-lipped about their decision.

[Trumpet_trousers]

Interesting that no-one, apart from the original Italian and Japanese customers, has expressed any interest in the KC-767.

Maybe the Nips like the vertical performance towards ships, and the Eye-ties the reverser performance?? :}

[Graybeard]

This whole procurement is not about extending range of fighters; it's about 95% greed an corruption.

Two modified 757s for every KC-x could deliver fuel at twice the rate for about 5% of the cost. $50 Billion is obscene.

Our military is costing more in inflated dollars today than at the height of WWII, when Ford was producing a B-24 bomber every 99 minutes. There's no excuse for it, other than greed and corruption.

GB

[knowitall]

"Two modified 757s for every KC-x"

shouldn't be to hard to find 358 2nd hand 757's


meanwhile back on planet earth......

[BEagle]

Graybeard, that isn't the case at all....

The 757 has roughly half the fuel capacity of the weaker KC-X competitor, the 767 NoGo Tanker.

But 2 x 757 burn a lot more fuel than 1 x KC-X, they'd need twice as many crews to pay, feed, water, house and look after as 1 x KC-X, they'd need VERY expensive modifications to fit a boom (if indeed that were possible) and a FRU. The wingspan is very tight for fitting wing AAR pods, that's if the structure could even cope.

Add in basing, training, military avionics, data link etc etc - and your boneyard bargains soon become VERY expensive......

[Graybeard]

Since most of the 1000+ built are still flying or flyable, it shouldn't be hard at all, at the rate the USAF could need them - even assuming a sizable quantity of KC-x equivalents are really needed. I saw some 757 parked at KVCV just yesterday, along with MD-11 and 747-400 cargo planes and scads of others. Aerial tankers get 10-20% of the utilization of airliners, so half-life airliners are bargains that will last longer than they'll be needed.

In the US, these are called pork barrel projects, where ranking CONgressmen get fat govt jobs for their constituents, in order to aid re-election. That's why Sen. Shelby of Alabama is so hot for the Airbus tanker, and other CONgress critters favor Boeing. If there were a CONgressional constituency for converting used airliners, that's what would happen.

GB

[knowitall]

"Since most of the 1000+ built are still flying or flyable, it shouldn't be hard at all"

really? i was under the impression that due to its versatility and the lack of a direct replacement most 757 operators are loath to part with them

"saw some 757 parked at KVCV just yesterday"

and if your New Zealand and you want to buy 2 or 3 for use as pax/cargo use only then they'd be a bargain, it doesn't mean they make sense for KCX

[ORAC]

EADS North America Launches Website Featuring the Only KC-X Tanker Entrant Flying Today (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/eads-north-america-launches-website,1264152.shtml)

ARLINGTON, VA -- 04/23/10 -- EADS North America has launched www.kc-45now.com (http://www.kc-45now.com/), a new website detailing why the American-made KC-45 aerial refueler is the clear choice to meet the U.S. Air Force's 21st Century tanker requirements. The new site features video and photography of the KC-45 tanker in flight conducting refueling operations, as well as facts and information about the aerial refueling system.

EADS North America announced this week it will offer its KC-45 for the Air Force's tanker modernization competition. The KC-45 is the only tanker in the competition that is in production and flying today. If selected by the Air Force, the KC-45 will be built at a new production facility in Mobile, Alabama, and will be supported by more than 200 suppliers across the country. The facility also will build commercial freighters, creating or supporting tens of thousands of American jobs.

EADS North America's KC-45 is the U.S. military version of EADS' proven A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), which has been selected over Boeing tankers in five consecutive head-to-head competitions. To date, 28 of these aircraft have been ordered by U.S. allies around the world. The A330 MRTT has transferred more than 265,000 lbs. of fuel to a range of military aircraft -- from F-16 and F/A-18 fighters to the E-3 AWACS -- using the same proven refueling systems offered on the KC-45. The new web site, KC45now.com (http://www.kc-45now.com), includes video and photos of those refueling operations, as well as a virtual tour of the cockpit.

Pentagon denies easing security for EADS tanker bid (http://news.alibaba.com/article/detail/markets/100284801-1-exclusive-pentagon-denies-easing-security-eads.html)

WASHINGTON, April 23 - The U.S. Defense Department rejected on Friday any suggestion that it had eased security so that Europe's EADS could go head-to-head against Boeing Co for a potential $50 billion U.S. Air Force aerial-refueling plane contract. The department "is not waiving or relaxing security requirements in the RFP (request for proposal)," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. "The allegation that we did this to favor EADS is absurd."..............

[ORAC]

My General's bigger than your General...... :rolleyes:

Air Force leaders in KC-X bid effort (http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/04/27/Air-Force-leaders-in-KC-X-bid-effort/UPI-81601272372548/)

WASHINGTON, April 27 (UPI) -- A former U.S. Air Force KC-135 tanker pilot has joined one of the two companies competing for a government contract to replace the fleet, officials said.

Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Arthur Lichte is, as of Friday, on the board of directors at EADS North America, one of the companies competing for a $35 billion contract to replace the aging KC-135 fleet, Defense News reports. Lichte is a former KC-135 pilot and repeatedly called for a replacement for the KC-135 when he served as the head of the U.S. Air Mobility Command from September 2007 until November 2009.

Ralph Crosby, the chairman of EADS North America, said Lichte's military experience made him a valuable addition to the board of directors.

"General Lichte's leadership experience in command positions at squadron, group and wing levels -- as well as commander of the Air Mobility Command -- will provide valuable perspectives," he said.

Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Tony Richardson, who also served as the commander of the AMC from August 1998 to December 2001, serves as an executive at Boeing Co., which is also competing for the $35 billion contract.

[Algy]

An interesting summer ahead. (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/04/tanker-battle-heats-up-with-ea.html)

[ORAC]

Boeing throwing their toys out of the cot.

They're obviously seriously worried about the fixed price bid if they have to compete against EADS.

The Airbus tanker is low risk as virtually no additional work is needed, so they can bid near the bone. The Boeing tanker, on the other hand, is a paper design which, with the background of the Italian order, may cost billions in costs and penalties to builr, debug and deliver.

Even if Boeing win, the bid may have to be so low they may lose money on it for decades to come. Which makes it sensible for EADS to bid, and bid low.

Boeing source: We may not bid for KC-X (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/05/defense_boeing_bid_051410/)

[D-IFF_ident]

Apparently the grandmother of the first pilot of the Boeing NewGen Tanker hasn't even been born yet!

:}

[Flyt3est]

So.. after months of praising the US DoD for their vision in making the KC-X procurment strategy a "Low price wins" scenario, Boeing are now spitting the dummy because they don't think they can compete on cost now?

Lets re-cap the whole KC-X thing..

Round 1 - Alleged shenanigans from Boeing senior execs and the Air Force to lease aircraft see's the contract cancelled and Boeing Senior staff in Jail.

Round 2 - The RFP for the most capable aircraft, giving all round cost effectiveness, Airbus.. sorry EADS / NGC wins.. Boeing whine, 7 of the 300 and odd protests are up held (Conveniently) and the contract is cancelled, but not before Boeing are handed a copy of the winning bidder's pricing breakdown..

Round 3 - This time the USDOD will get it right, Boeing know the Airbus pricing last time, the 767 is smaller so must be cheaper, lets forget capability and just buy the cheap option, Boeing will win, happy voters... Only thing is... every man and his auntie knows that AiBM are fully aware of the strategic importance of a KC-X win, and suddenly Bubba Boeing isn't sleeping so good because his numbers don't work.. net result.. lets whine and protest again..:ugh:

So the 767 NG is non-existant, more expensive and even if it does exist eventually, it will be less capable than the A330 anyway.

From a Boeing perspective, win KC-X and it will cost you the shirt off your back to deliver it. Lose KC-X and Airbus will have your shirt anyway..

Ain't life just a bitch sometimes?:}

[Jig Peter]

The new coalition in power in UK finds "shock horror" new tanker costs seems to be today's Press story , which is more than a bit surprising, as the deal was signed in 2008. Could be underhand skulduggery manoeuvres by Boeing sympathisers inside MoD/ HM Treasury to knock a hole in the A330-based tanker order book, which would do them no harm in the struggle for the KC-X order (which is why I've posted this here).*
I know that this sort of behaviour "isn't British", but then, neither is Boeing.

*Continuing the Great Britsh Tradition of buying "cheap" from the US and then getting lower performance than they were sold :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[ORAC]

JP, I think the issue isn't that it isn't the right tanker, rather that PPI is not, and never has been the bargain it was cracked up to be. Hence the RAAF scorning it and the FAF eliminating as a possibility.

the fact is it was just a method of shifting debt off balance sheet and avoiding showing how much we owe, and have ourselves in hock to in the future.

The present government has promised to come clean and reveal all the true figures, including PPI ( and I hope civil service unfunded pensions etc).

If they do that, and assuming the contract has a get out clause, it may be more effective to switch it to a straightforward purchase.

[Jig Peter]

Let's hope you're right (which is probable) - but without additional delays. The first aircraft are well on in build and trials, aren't they?

addendum: If the (once?) fashionable "off balance sheet" accounting mechanism is also declared suspect, for companies as well as the Government, there might be some clarity in prospects for the future !! :hmm::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[BEagle]

Yup, sounds as though ol' Bubba Boeing is running scared on this one! Quelle pity.....:\

The Italian 767 delivery is now 'late 2010', I undertsand? That's if the pods ever work properly throughout the required speed range..... Presumably it'll be cool enough then for the old beast to be able to struggle airborne at somewhere nearer to it's MTOW at Pratica de Mare?

The 767 NoGo has huge winglets, presumably another desperate attempt to solve the buffet and/or flutter problems, plus a high-risk yet-to-be-fully-tested 7-late-7 flight deck. Yes, that'll surely prove cheaper then the proven A330MRTT, won't it...:hmm: Not much development and testing needed there then, eh Bubba?

As for FSTA, I merely recall the words of the responsible civil serpent in about 1999 - "This programme will NOT be allowed to slip!".

[SirToppamHat]

Beagle

I don't disagree with you, but shouldn't you be declaring an interest at the beginning of your posts on this subject? ;)

PFI/PPP, or whatever else you want to call it, is a massive con that has been used by the previous governments to hide the true cost of purchases. The announcement of the current shower that they are going to bring all this stuff back onto the books seems, on the face of it, to be a good start.

The danger, of course, is that it just proves we really can't afford anything. The new name badges will be good, though.

STH

[SpotterFC]

Aussie translation for PFI?

Pomms (are) F***ing Idiots

[Algy]

This is from one of several recent sorties in which the first two RAAF KC-30 MRTTs conducted buddy refuelling for the first time. One of the last items before military certification. Very smooth exercise.
http://www.a330mrtt.com/Portals/0/Imgs/English/Press/PR_17_05_2010_01.jpg

[ORAC]

Boeing must be getting really desperate. They've realised they can't even allow EADS to bid, because of the price they'd have to match, which they can't afford with the risks of a fixed-price contract. There only remaining tactic is to use tactics like this to persuade Congress to debar, EADS, then twist arms to get the contract changed back to cost plus as "more cost effective".

Reuters: Boeing cites Iran in tanker battle with EADS (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2513729720100525?type=marketsNews)

WASHINGTON, May 25 (Reuters) - Boeing Co accused rival EADS of having courted Iran and other countries at odds with the United States and said this should figure in awarding a potential $50 billion U.S. Air Force refueling plane contract.

EADS, headquartered in Paris and Munich, "continues to do business with countries that are not friendly to the United States," Timothy Keating, Boeing's vice president of government operations, told a small group of reporters. He cited an EADS effort to market one of its helicopters at an Iranian air show. The event in question took place in 2005, Boeing officials later said, supplying the transcript and a link to video of an NBC television report at the time.

We have not seen any indication that EADS no longer has an interest in marketing their military products to countries like Iran," Daniel Beck, a Boeing spokesman, said in a followup telephone interview. Keating and other Boeing executives urged U.S. officials to factor national security into the competition for a new fleet of tankers, used to refuel warplanes during flight.

A spokesman for EADS North American arm responded by accusing Boeing of mounting "a misinformation campaign" in an attempt to make the competition "about anything other than getting the best tanker for the Air Force."

EADS' James Darcy said Boeing was calling into question the U.S. Defense Department's judgment since it was "DoD that stood up and said we could bid on KC-X as a prime" contractor. "And that was based on their evaluation of a whole host of factors, principal among which were national security concerns," Darcy said.

The Defense Department did not immediately respond to a request for a comment.

Boeing officials said the national security matter loomed large now that Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N), EADS's partner in a previous tanker competition, had dropped out. This removed the leverage that the U.S. government would have had to make sure of an uninterrupted flow of spare parts for any Airbus tanker in case of a policy difference with France and Germany, which hold stakes in EADS and which opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"What leverage does the United States have over EADS North America" the unit that would be the prime contractor, Keating asked. "A lot less than they would have over the Boeing Company" which does a lot more business with Washington, he responded.

In the NBC television report that aired on Feb. 23, 2005, an EADS representative, identified as Michel Tripier, said his company was emphasizing its civil helicopters at the air show on the Iranian island of Kish. "As a European company, we're not supposed to take into account embargoes from the U.S.," he said on camera at the time.

[Flyt3est]

Boeing are actually sending out begging e-mails to visitors to their Tanker website begging for support for the inclusion of penalties based on the WTO report into the RFP.

In short they have become desperate and an absolute disgrace to the USA.

As for EADS trying to flog civil helicopters in Iran.. a couple of notable items on the Iranian Air Force inventory..

BOEING CH-47
BOEING 707 Tanker
BOEING 747

Whats next from Boeing, bribery AGAIN???

As an organization, as representatives of US Defense primes and as people, Boeing are absolutely shameful.

:*

[brickhistory]

This removed the leverage that the U.S. government would have had to make sure of an uninterrupted flow of spare parts for any Airbus tanker in case of a policy difference with France and Germany, which hold stakes in EADS and which opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.



The above point is not inconsequential.

I do not, ever, want US policy decided by another nation.

Boeing has/is screwing this up by the numbers (as has the Pentagon), but spare me the hypocrisy. When the financial stakes are this big, each company is going all-out to win.

It's not unheard of.


EADS is hardly the shining Euro-knight on the hill.

[ORAC]

Brick, then I suggest you debar the Boeing 767 as well. Still, I suppose in Boeing's eyes the Chinese and the Russians are more trustworthy than the Europeans...... :hmm::hmm:

B767 Airframe Component Suppliers:

Czech Republic Aero Vodochody a.s. Aircraft Control Surfaces: Fixed leading edge parts & kits (Spirit Aerosystems)

South Africa Aerosud Pty Ltd Aircraft Interior Bulkheads: Business class seat partitions

Italy Alenia Aeronautica SpA Wings: Spoilers, flaps, ailerons, slats and wing tips; Empennages: Fin; Aircraft Control Surfaces: Rudder; Radomes: Radome

Canada Avcorp Industries Inc. Fairings: Aft strut fairings

China BHA Aero Composite Parts Co., Ltd Wings: Wing fixed trailing edge; Empennages: Empennage panels

Israel Elbit Systems Cyclone Ltd Fairings: Tail skid fairing; Aircraft Doors: Blowout doors

UK GKN Aerospace Services Winglets: Blended winglets (767-300 ER)

India Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (Aircraft Division Bangalore) Aircraft Doors: Bulk cargo door

Korea Korean Air Aerospace Business Division Fuselage Sections: Body sections

Japan Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation Fuselage Sections: Aft fuselage panel; Aircraft Doors: Cargo doors

UK Spirit AeroSystems Europe Ltd Wings: Fixed leading edges

[brickhistory]

I suppose in Boeing's eyes the Chinese and the Russians are more trustworthy than the Europeans......


A not unreasonable assumption.







I keed, I keed....

[Rengineer]

The thing I find interesting is that most of the Boeing publicity seems to be directed at discrediting the EADS product (and company), rather than promoting their own. :ugh: Normally, if my inexpert assessment of publicity campaigns is correct, public opinion will end up gravitating to the product that receives the most exposure, good or bad. Not sure Boeing are doing themselves a favor, then. Again, of course, the contract won't be decided by the public. ;)

[blandy1]

I see Boeing's concern for foreign involvment in defence project does not extend to ground vehicles - they are fronting up a german bid of the Puma IFV for the US GCV programme. www.defenseaerospace.com (http://www.defenseaerospace.com)

[Tester07]

I do not, ever, want US policy decided by another nation.

Can you not imagine for a second how laughable that statement sounds to all those millions of people all over the world who have to constantly live with their policy decided - adversely from their point of view - by the USA?

[Squirrel 41]

Boeing's trash talk of Airbus makes them look petty; and as devoid of arguments as they are of flying KC-X tanker prototypes.

The real argument comes down to technical risk and execution capacity: Airbus have a number of flying A330 MRTTs with pods that work, boom that works and UAARSI (sp?) that works. AFAIK it doesn't have a flying full-spec KC-X prototype, complete with cargo door and up-rated floor, but suffice to say it's light years ahead of where the Boeing mob are.

Which presumably means that Airbus have a pretty solid idea of the costs of production and can low-ball the bid, whereas Boeing have a huge amount of execution risk for an unbuilt concept* in a fixed-price contract. If that's the case, you'd have to pray hard if you go in low-ball and hope it's all alright on the night.

Personally, I think that it's wide open and that EADS may well win it - and before the usual cynicism kicks in, remember that KC-30 (as it was then) actually did win it last time out.

How much would the OzAF charge Airbus to let them deliver the bid to Andrews AFB in a pair of their jets? A little tanker-tanker refuelling fly-by
of the Pentagon has shades of 367-80's barrel roll....

S41

*If this is unfair to Boeing, I apologise profusely - but what % of the drawings have been released and how's the integration of the new flight deck and the wing-pods going?

[brickhistory]

Can you not imagine for a second how laughable that statement sounds to all those millions of people all over the world who have to constantly live with their policy decided - adversely from their point of view - by the USA?

Without meaning to turn this thread into one for JetBlast, you make my point for me.

It's much better to be the driver and not a passenger is one polite way of stating it.

[ORAC]

Brick, I thought I'd made the point, the USA isn't the driver.

Whether you buy Boeing or Airbus, the DoD is managing a multinational project with between 30-60% built overseas.

As far as the claim that buying the 767 ensures US availability of components, I'd point out that, for a very thin production line with no other customers, the 767 spares and support will rapidly be outsourced by Boeing to reduce costs.

If, however, the Airbus is selected, then a US A330F production line will ensure a US based production and spares capability for decades to come - with the costs offset by the civilian market.

And that is the other killer. Boeing will have to support every single cost on a production line for less than 200 aircraft - but Airbus can spread the entire production/support cost over a production line for civilian freighters which is only just being offered to the market.

Financially you have to wonder how Boeing can support their bid except at a massive financial loss - unless they offload it to the tax payer.

Sorry, did someone whisper subsidy?

[brickhistory]

orac, your points are noted and taken.


I still prefer Boeing over EADS for national and economic reasons.

As to the technical merits, I still leave that to experts as I've stated before.

[Squirrel 41]

Brick,

Fair enough, but I can't see how an Airbus victory here resulting in a new production line in the US (read: lots of high wage, high skill jobs) could possibly be a bad thing given that Boeing have all the work they can handle with 787? Especially as this is a production line that will be turning out civilian A330Fs for the whole world (thereby being US exports and aiding the US balance of payments), and (sotto voce) if these Americans can show that they're lower cost for final assembly than western Europe (not unlikely), I suspect that they may get a slug more civilian work, too (cf the A320 line in China).

In this sense, it's just the same as a Toyota plant in the US. And they seem to do alright.

And then of course, there's the small point that the A330 MRTT is simply a better aircraft for the USAF, and that as with the AV-8A, the US forces have a record for overcoming "not made here syndrome" for something that works for them - even if it means building it Stateside. Long may it continue!

S41

[Yeller_Gait]

From The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/boeing-to-pay-100m-for-wedgetail-delays/story-e6frg6nf-1225811145006)

BOEING will pay the Australian government tens of millions of dollars in compensation in a final commercial settlement over the late delivery of the RAAF's $4 billion airborne early warning aircraft. After months of bruising negotiations, the two parties agreed last week on a deal that will see Boeing pay the commonwealth both a cash settlement and provide further technical help at no cost to the troubled Wedgetail project.
A spokesman for DefenceMinister John Faulkner yesterday declined to reveal the exact sum paid by Boeing in liquidated damages to the commonwealth for failing to meet the delivery timetable and the agreed performance specification for the Wedgetail's complex systems, including its highly advanced phased array radar.
But it is understood the payment is about $100 million, making it one of the largest liquidated damages payouts involving a Defence Department contract.
Boeing has also spent an estimated $US1.7 billion ($1.9bn) of its own funds trying to fix the glitches in Wedgetail over and above its fixed-price $4bn contract with Defence, but they are already running four years late following a string of developmental problems.Boeing have just been burnt over the fixed price contract for Wedgetail, so I guess it is highly unlikely that they will enter into another fixed price contract for development of a new aircraft.

Boeing are hopeful of more customers for their B737 AEW&C, but can they expect that anyone other than the USAF will order their 767 tanker?

Boeing Wedgetail Aircraft Accepted Into Royal Australian Air Force (http://www.boeing.com.au/ViewContent.do?id=54924&Year=2010&aContent=Boeing%20Wedgetail%20Aircraft%20Accepted%20Into%20R oyal%20Australian%20Air%20Force%20Fleet):D

Y_G

[Graybeard]

...spares capability for decades to come...

Winning the last war is typical military thinking. The UAVs are successful right now, and I haven't heard of them needing aerial refueling. Where's the present and future need for aerial refueling?

USAF says the KC-10A is too large. If true, then so is the A330.

Likewise, hauling cargo is a capability looking for a need. The USAF doesn't want any more C-17 - they have enough - and the airlines like Atlas, Evergreen and Omni are doing the job at far lower cost than the USAF could do it, even with dedicated fleets, let alone a dual use plane.

The used airliner market is the place to get additional refuelers - if there's a need. The cost would be about 10% of the cost of this new program, and the planes would come on line much quicker.

Airbus and Boeing need to wean themselves from the Military-Industrial complex, and its fraud, waste and abuse.

GB

[Squirrel 41]

GB,


The used airliner market is the place to get additional refuelers - if there's a need.

No, and yes.

AFAIK, the challenge with the former is finding enough low time aircraft in a common configuration that will stand conversion and provide the capability the USAF is looking for.

It's not quite the problem the RAF ran into with the VC-10s (ie, operating a unique fleet of aircraft) but it's still likely to be a nightmare.

S41

[BEagle]

Greybeard has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about the potential of old airliners such as the 757 being turned into tankers. As has been stated previously, the 757 is all but useless as a tanker due to its low fuel capability, small wing span and the disproportionate effort which would be needed to add a boom to the fuselage structure....

I note from the latest ARSAG newsletter that Boeing are still spouting the same old nonsense:

A ‘Pilot-in Command’ philosophy has been noted as a hallmark of the Boeing flight deck design, with familiar flight controls that provide pilots with important multisensory visual and tactile feedback on airplane behavior. This flight deck philosophy provides pilots with predictable and consistent flight control at all times, reducing response time in normal and emergency situations. The NewGen Tanker also allows the pilots access to the full flight envelope with no artificial computer law limits, giving the pilots immediate combat maneuverability whenever needed.

Finally, Boeing officials proudly point to the NewGen Tanker providing 21st century crews and their aircraft survivability enhancements unprecedented in a tanker aircraft, allowing them to safely operate in harm’s way.

What complete and utter drivel. What they really mean is "The NoGo tanker would have an old-fashioned control yoke and no flight envelope protection, giving the pilot the potential facility to destroy the aircraft during unnecessarily aggressive manoeuvring should the USAF be daft enough to employ the aircraft contrary to ATP-56(B) doctrine".

Face it, Bubba, you're going to need better reasons to back up your unflown 'paper plane' tanker.

I hear on the grapevine that the Italian KC-767I system despatch reliability is pretty lousy - and that the pods/flutter/buffet problems still haven't been fully solved. Over 5 years late and ol' Bubba still can't get it to work? What confidence would anyone other than the most jingoistic redneck have in the 767 NoGo development schedule?

[ORAC]

Winning the last war is typical military thinking. The UAVs are successful right now, and I haven't heard of them needing aerial refueling. Where's the present and future need for aerial refueling? Funds to Boeing, NGC to Advance UAV Aerial Refueling (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/49M-for-Boeing-to-Advance-UAV-Aeral-Refueling-05168/)

USAF says the KC-10A is too large. If true, then so is the A330. Air Force Times: The tanker debate: Why bigger is better (http://www.airforcetimes.com/community/opinion/airforce_backtalk_tanker_080128/)

[Flyt3est]

ORAC

Beat me to it mate..

Graybeard, that post was total tosh.. sorry mate, but you clearly don't pay attention to modern requirements or understand modern concepts of operations.

Beagle - No arguments from me mate :ok:

[Flyt3est]

So Boeing have managed it.. All that political lobbying has paid off, and now the Pentagon will apply a penalty to the Airbus bid for KC-X as part of the rules governing FY2011 Defense Budget contracts.. well they couldn't build a plane, they couldn't match a price, so they had to resort to the good ole boys network.. well done Boeing :D

Of course this now puts the USA in direct contravention of the WTO rules of pariticpation so presumably there will be some very serious backlash towards Uncle Sam??

[brickhistory]

Of course this now puts the USA in direct contravention of the WTO rules of pariticpation so presumably there will be some very serious backlash towards Uncle Sam??


Indeed.

..................

[Graybeard]

Backlash from WTO? Bring it ON!

We import six times as much as we export, so we win any trade war by stopping our present losses.

My solution is 100% inspection of imports - paid by the importers. We've had enough of toxic drywall, poisoned pet food and toothpaste, fatally tainted Heparin, and on and on. Aren't you finding the same in your imports?

Even before the foreign devils devastated our Gulf Coast last month, we were importing 80% of our seafood, with less than 1% inspection. Alabama inspects all imported seafood, and rejects over half, due to toxins, antibiotics, etc., in fish that are raised in raw sewage and other foul fluids.

Alabama doesn't have much going for it, except safe seafood. I'm sure it's not that, but the cheap labor that's attracting EADS. Oil goo and hurricanes better be factored in to the cost.

GB

[knowitall]

"Even before the foreign devils devastated our Gulf Coast last month,"

the companies name was changed to BP not British petroleum because it actually more American than British these days, oh and the contractors running the rig were American enough!

and the EU buys twice as much defence kit from you than you buy from the EU

and do you bother submitting US produced goods to such stringent inspections (GM food, hormones in beef etc)

frankly the last thing the entire planet needs right now the USA included is a trade war

[Flyt3est]

Graybeard,

speaking as a Brit who lived in Alabama, I'd like to provide a considered response to your well founded and clearly well researched post..



Cock.

:ugh:

[brickhistory]

One of the reasons I enjoy the Military Aircrew forum is that it usually is either informative or witty.

Rarely resorting to personal attacks that are neither.

[Flyt3est]

Brick

I enjoy the Military Aircrew forum is that it usually is either informative or witty

And which category does Graybeard fit into??


BTW I am claiming "Witty". :ok:

[BEagle]

Alabama doesn't have much going for it, except safe seafood. I'm sure it's not that, but the cheap labor that's attracting EADS

And there was I thinking that Huntsville has a pretty impressive aerospace industry?

As for cheap labour, hasn't slavery ended in Allybammy yet?

Anyway, I think the conclusion one can reach is that, whilst Americans might prefer a domestic design, if the competitor is superior and offers the possibility of more jobs within the US, they'd be mad to dismiss it.

But of course the bottom-feeding senators and their good ol' boy lobbyists will win the day - to the detriment of the USAF.

I keep harking back to ol' Bubba Boeing's dismal efforts with the KC-767I for Italy. Their KC-X proposal, the 767NoGo, represents even greater technological risk for the customer, particularly the decision to include the 7-late-7 flight deck. But perhaps those enormous winglets might just fix the flutter/buffet/hose stability problems?

Whereas the A330MRTT with its excellent Cobham Mission Equipment AAR kit goes from strength to strength.

[Cpt_Pugwash]

Careful with that axe, BEagle, :ok:

With apologies to Pink Floyd.

[brickhistory]

you didn't say you disagreed though


Nope, I didn't say I disagreed.


BTW I am claiming "Witty"


I believe the tradition has been an unverified claim is disallowed.


But of course the bottom-feeding senators and their good ol' boy lobbyists will win the day - to the detriment of the USAF.


Kind of you to have the best interests of the USAF in mind. Certainly no other interests involved, right?


I keep harking back to ol' Bubba Boeing's dismal efforts with the KC-767I for Italy.


And those wacky Italians still bought the Boeing product.

[BEagle]

Yes, they believed ol' Bubba's spin.....

....and 5 years after it was due to be delivered, they're still waiting for the 767I.

The point being that ol' Bubba's track record on the 767 tanker isn't particularly good, so to trust that an even riskier technology wouldn't be equally delayed, or perhaps even more so, is somewhat naive, to say the least.

[brickhistory]

An aircraft program being late?!

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you.


A400?
Typhoon?
787?
F-35?
Even your beloved Airbus tanker?

All on time?

And no comment on specific interests in a specific program?

[cornish-stormrider]

As an outsider (i.e. I'm not on either Boeing or Airbus's sh*t/bribe/suck up to lists (delete as appropriate)) it seems to me the choice is of a Tanker that needs a few teeny tweaks and could be slotted into production pdq, from a manufacturer that does both drogue and probe or the goatf**k pole approach
OR
the not even off the back of the fag packet designs from good ole Bubba. (who, from what I can understand still hasn't got his last project tanker to work)

If it was my money, I'd be going away from seattle. The views spouted by some americans here about the inferiority of overseas products is quite frankly insulting, rude, untrue and has a nasty whiff of racism about it (in my opinion)

It may be true about the quality varying but you get what you pay for and if you consume huge amounts of anything and you don't pay attention then you will find enterprising types will try and move the margins a little.

From my limited knowledge of US seafood (Tybee Island Crab Shack) and that there deadliest catch show, your produce is lovely, local stuff excellent, Alaskan stuff criminally high food miles. I'll bet most of you didn't now they bait the crab pots with Cod!!

No wonder the prices are so high here.

To summarize before the drugs get too bad I think the Buy USA when it is clearly a vastly inferior product is a bad choice.

I suspect Bubba will win though, but I'd like to see a corruption investigation on the process, like t' Baron nearly got caught with ( hope Dave runs it again) or BA got tarred with and like BP seems to be going to get (Nicely avoided by Halliburton)

Just because it says made in USA on the tin does not make it better - but hey what do I know, I bought a car from a cheese eating surrender monkey rather then buy British.

[GreenKnight121]

Ummm... Corny-Stormy, the cod used for bait for Alaskan crab is caught there in the Bering sea... often by the crab boats themselves.


And the Italians & Japanese simply let themselves be used by Boeing to pay for the R&D & prototype work, so Boeing could lower the costs on their KC-X bid. "Never buy the 'A' model of anything".


I still think the USAF would have a pretty good tanker with either candidate... its just that the Boeing model might take a few years (& a few billion$) longer to get all the bugs worked out.

[giblets]

Intersting reading that Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan has been closed to tanker traffic, this goes all the way back to the argument based on fuel offload at distance. The got kicked out of Uzbeckistan back in 2005, and this just pushes them further away.

Where is the USAF next nearest base they can use? Muscat?

[BEagle]

The A330MRTT holds about 20 tonnes more fuel than ol' Bubba's paper plane might, if it ever gets built....:hmm:

Even at a (very) pessimistic 6.7 tonne per hour, that's 3 hours flight time.

At a pessimistic 480KTAS, that's an increased radius of action in still air of 720 nm - or 1334 km if you prefer.

Quite handy, one might think?

[cornish-stormrider]

Beags, either metricate fully or not at all.

do not mix your units. stick with the SI ones please.

Or :E go back to what you used when wheels were square and dinosaurs ruled the earth!! Fathoms, Chains, Bushels and Pecks I believe??


But I do agree with you about Bubba's nogo dupertanky planey.......
It will never catch on and I pity the fool that has to fly to/from/with it.

[Graybeard]

"Even before the foreign devils devastated our Gulf Coast last month,"

the companies name was changed to BP not British petroleum because it actually more American than British these days, oh and the contractors running the rig were American enough!

and do you bother submitting US produced goods to such stringent inspections (GM food, hormones in beef etc)

When they don't pay any taxes on US income, they are indeed foreign devils. That goes for ExonMob as well, the most profitable corp in the history of the world.

I'm glad you're rejecting US frankenfoods. That helps us fight them at home.

Getting a little OT, it is maddening that medics, Toyota, BP and other companies in risky businesses aren't taking advantage of all that's been learned about safety in achieving Cat IIIc by Boeing, Lockheed and Airbus. The BP disaster would probably have been avoided by spending another half $Million for a backup, as required in Brazil and Norway waters.

BEagle, you seem to ignore EADS bet on the wrong horse in 2008. McCain's campaign staff was loaded with EADS lobbyists.

And there was I thinking that Huntsville has a pretty impressive aerospace industry?

As for cheap labour, hasn't slavery ended in Allybammy yet?

Get out your old atlas, BEagle. Huntsville is at the other end of the state from Mobile area. I got my first aviation training at Redstone Arsenal - on Nike Hercules missiles. :)

Wages are on the downhill slide to serfdom. Ala is a right to work state, which means unions have no power. Besides that, Ala government has the best judges money can buy.

Used airliners are the best source of tankers. Screw new.

GB

[brickhistory]

Used airliners are the best source of tankers. Screw new.



Yeah, the idea worked so well for the USAF's E-8C JSTARS fleet.

Do a little research on what refurbishing them - not counting the fancy electronics, just washing cow sh1t out and corrosion repair fixes - cost as compared to new builds.

Not to mention the unexpectedly large O&M funds in keeping a "used airliner" in service or the fuel burn on those "cheap" engines.

[BEagle]

brick, on that I would certainly agree!

In contrast to the USAF, the RAF has never bought a new tanker. Victors were converted nuclear bombers, VC10K2s, 3s and 4s were secondhand and thirdhand airliners, TriStars were also someone else's cast-offs and VC10C1Ks were converted from RAF transports.

Buying 'used' is not a cheap solution when you add the cost of through-life maintenance, compliance with current age regulatory requirements, rewiring, sorting out exfoliation corrosion, keeping ancient engine rebuilders in business......

Graybeard, when you referred to Alabama in your silly post:Alabama doesn't have much going for it, except safe seafood.you didn't specify any particular region.

[GreenKnight121]

BEagle, you forgot Valiant B(K).1, operational from 1957-1964.

[BEagle]

Which were also converted nuclear bombers......

[Flyt3est]

Used airliners are the best source of tankers. Screw new



Mis-informed.




Ala government has the best judges money can buy.



Cock.

[GreenKnight121]

Which were also converted nuclear bombers......


I believe that IS what the "B" in Valiant B(K).1 stands for.

It was simply the first of the "converted nuclear bombers"-type tankers... I was just making sure it wasn't forgotten.

[ORAC]

Ohhh, the exquisite irony and hypocrisy........ :cool:

Boeing to offer Italian AW101 for White House helicopter. (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/07/342878/boeing-to-offer-italian-aw101-for-white-house-helicopter.html)

[glad rag]

I got my first aviation training at Redstone Arsenal - on Nike Hercules missiles. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif


You do know the old missilteers joke about AF' servicings ??:}:}


(YES I know they have an AF servicing scedule..)





AF=After Flight servicing.

[Rengineer]

Whoopsie!
This should make for interesting supporting documentation in the EU case against Boeing before the WTO. That latter is, BTW, a reason why I expect that subsidy rule for the tanker acquisition may yet blow up in Boeing's face. :ugh:

[BEagle]

Whilst the prospect of the EC and Boeing squaring up to each other in front of the FTO is one matter, what progress has Ol' Bubba Boeing made of late with the small matter of the Italian KC-767 programme?

Has the flutter problem been cured yet? Or is Ol' Bubba seriously expecting the Italians to accept the aircraft with the problem unresolved, against some vague promise of hopefully finding a fix in years to come? That would be an offer which most certainly could be refused...... Capice?

Top tip, Bubba. Throw away the present 767I pods and pylons and fit something designed by a company which knows what it's doing. Perhaps a visit to a certain company based in Wimborne might be an idea?

[Flyt3est]

I would have made comment on the "Boeing 101" earlier, but unfortunately I read this story this morning and have spent the remainder of the day rolling around on the floor laughing my ar5e off.

I think Beagle has a great idea, come on Bubba, get some good British AAR systems on your aircraft, then one day, when you grow up you might be as smart as Airbus!! :ok:

[MarkD]

Boeing’s proposal would transfer all intellectual property, data and production rights for the AW101 from Italy and the UK to the USAPuzzled by this. Does this mean only Boeing can produce Merlins in the US (and not LM)? The way it reads it looks like AW is getting out of Merlin-making entirely? :confused:

(Also note that US has no objection to technology transfer TO them - see F-22, etc)

[dangermouse]

so no other 101 production in the USA apart from for the prez

After being stabbed in the back by LM going to Sikorsky what else were AW going to do?, a big US prime contractor is needed otherwise you neednt even bother strting with a bid in the USA

DM

[Flyt3est]

I don't think transferring IPR and production of thre US101 to Boeing is necessarily a big deal, don't forget that the US101 and the European Merlin are very different beasts.. I guess it just depends on how AWL are affected by issues such as ITAR on common parts. I still think the hypocrisy from Boeing is hilarious.

[ORAC]

last option for Boeing, if you can't afford to lose the competition, and you can't afford to win it - get it cancelled; and tough luck on the USAF....

Lawmakers urge major cuts in Defense spending (http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=45474&oref=todaysnews)

KC-X: Risk Of Deferral Or Even Stopping Contract Award? (http://www.glgroup.com/News/KC-X--Risk-Of-Deferral-Or-Even-Stopping-Contract-Award--48934.html)

[BEagle]

Ol' Bubba must really be beginning to squirm more than a twisty-turny thing.

A 7-late-7 derivative? How short some people's memories are....

From Flight International 25-31 May 2004, page 37:

For the mid- to long-term, Boeing insists that the 767 remains its choice for the next USAF tanker. The recently launched 7E7, although a 767 replacement, is designed for long-range point-to-point routes and is unsuitable for the tanker mission, says Boeing senior vice-president and general manager air force systems, George Muellner.
"The issue is not composites, but its configuration," he says, adding that futuristic concepts such as the blended wing-body will not be available until "2015 at least". Focus remains on the 767, says Muellner, who adds that the "spiral development" potential of the KC-767A makes it "much more than just a tanker". The USAF "wants a 'smart' tanker, which will work as a communication node in the network, and a relay for ground communications systems."

Be really 'smart', USAF, don't choose between Ol' Bubba's risky 767NoGo and a 7-late-7 with 'configuration' issues of Boeing's own admission. Reselect the original KC-X winner, the superb Airbus KC-45A.

[glad rag]

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/419136-boeing-will-recommend-more-frequent-maintenance-checks-767-aircraft.html

read fantom's post #4

" Engineering experts, according to people familiar with the matter, continue to assess whether
large, upwardly curved panels attached to the wingtips of some American 767s
have caused or contributed to certain cracks discovered in a section of the
structural backbone of a few planes. Called winglets and installed on many
types of commercial and business jets, the additions are designed to
increase fuel efficiency. (Andy Pasztor, Wall Street Journal - 6/22)"

[Tester07]

the subsidized A330

Oh dear. What is it about Americans that means that they are completely incapable of separating fact from Nationally generated fiction (propaganda)?

If this whole tanker procurement farce is not a classic example of how the Americans do 'subsidy' then I dont know what is!

[Saintsman]

It seems there may be a last minute bid using Antanovs

US company partners with Antonov in surprise KC-X bid (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/02/343992/us-company-partners-with-antonov-in-surprise-kc-x-bid.html)

I wonder if they'll use Russian Pods, although I hear they have a nasty habit of catching on fire...

[cornish-stormrider]

But in Soviet Russia you don't refuel fighters, fighters refuel You.

Bubba will end up with a tanker that sucks fuel from its intended refuelee.

If it ever gets off the back of Bubba's cigar box.

[GreenKnight121]

The filing document says US Aerospace will submit three models of Antonov aircraft - An-124-KC, An-122-KC and An-112-KC - before the KC-X bidding deadline on 9 July. The aircraft will be assembled in the US, but built in the Ukraine.An-124-KC, An-122-KC (2-engined An-124)
OK... the world's biggest refueler (significantly bigger than even the B747 tanker)... and how long will the boom & hoses need to be to get the "receiver aircraft" out of the wake-turbulence zone of that monster?


An-112-KC
An un-built swept-winged jet-engined drawing-board aircraft loosely based on a 1950s-designed straight-winged turboprop transport. For a competition that specifies entries must be based on an "in-service commercial design".

Russia must have some serious drugs going around!

[Squirrel 41]

GK121

Russia must have some serious drugs going around!

Amen to that - but also the Ukraine. More seriously does the WTO decision last week change anything? I've not been following it.

S41

[ORAC]

EADS offer lower prices in tanker bid (http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/07/eads-offer-lower-prices-in-tanker-bid.html)

European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. will offer prices below its previous ones in order to win a contract to provide the U.S. Air Force with new aerial refueling tankers, German daily Financial Times Deutschland reports Monday, citing industry sources.

EADS’ Airbus unit will set one price for each model, which will be below the prices it had set for the 2008 and 2009 offers, the report says. This would mean the aerial refueling taker based on the Airbus A330-200 would cost at least 10 percent less than its last $184 million offer, the paper reports.

U.S. rival Boeing Co. will have to calculate a fixed price for a modernized version of is 767 model, which hasn’t flown yet, meaning a bigger risk for Boeing, in contrast to EADS, which can rely on already existing models that have been used in over 1,000 refueling actions, FT Deutschland reports.

EADS wasn’t immediately available for comment Monday.

[Rengineer]

So, some simple math: 184M$ times 179 makes 32.94bn$. Take 10% off and you get 29.64bn$. That would be barely more than the ludicrous Antonov deal, if they're really planning a fixed price per aircraft and no non-recurrings, as the article seems to suggest. I couldn't find the alleged source on the FTD website though. Wonder if it's just a rumor? :confused:

[JFZ90]

Boeing keep on about the Airbus WTO thing - which appears to be about the interest rate not being 'commercial' on loan from Govts - loans which are paid back I assume.

How can they do this when this is happening....

Senators want to buy more C17s USAF don't want (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/14/344403/us-senators-raise-alarms-over-more-c-17-add-ons.html)

....govts buying planes they don't even want or need to prop up industry. Surely this is a far worse, more inappropriate industry subsidy than any loan?

[BandAide]

To make the buy from anyone but Boeing in today's political and economic climate would be unthinkable.

My guess is EADS' only hope is to delay the procurement decision until after the November election, or unemployment drops below 8% in the States whichever is later.

Boeing's cyberads for American Tanker = American Jobs are popping up everywhere.

[D-IFF_ident]

Bump...

Air Force tanker bid thrown out for arriving 5 minutes late - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/05/air.force.tanker.bid.fight/#fbid=jUEpCU8gPbq&wom=false)

:ugh:

[BEagle]

Intriguing to know how a 'messenger' could apparently wander around unescorted for 35 minutes inside W-P AFB....:hmm:

With so much at stake, the people proposing this paper-plane Antonov (which is even further away from flying than the 767NoGo) should have made darn sure they knew exactly where, by when and to whom their bid should have been delivered. Then arrived at least 2 hours ahead of time....

It's too late now - a deadline is a deadline is a deadline.

Quelle pity..............:rolleyes:

[ORAC]

Boeing are still running scared. As I stated previously, they can't afford to lose this contest - the problem being they can't afford to win it either.....

The "expert contributor" reports on this site are always so incredibly pro-Boeing I can't believe even the Boeing PR staf are responsible, but go figure.

Read between the lines and work out how happy they are.... :ouch:

KC-X Tanker: Contract Winner May Not Win All They Seek (http://www.glgroup.com/News/KC-X-Tanker--Contract-Winner-May-Not-Win-All-They-Seek-49878.html)

.......How much either side sees the win being instrumental to their military footprint depends on the level at which they are prepared to pay for it. It looks inevitable that Airbus’ ability to outprice Boeing could leave a 767 win being an expensive, loss making effort.........

Both sides claim to want to win to secure jobs and its hard to see how either candidate winning manages to make good on the promise when the price for doing so may be higher than either side are willing to pay for or admit defeat to.

It’s a messy game and one that quite frankly needs to be scrapped altogether given the continuous indecision that surrounds it.

[Tester07]

....govts buying planes they don't even want or need to prop up industry. Surely this is a far worse, more inappropriate industry subsidy than any loan?

Exactly. Nail on the head JFZ90.

The USA has always propped-up its industry in this manner. Governors or Senators who hail from the State in which the US company production plant happens to be located have had huge influence over military orders.

Alternatively governments spend millions of dollars researching new technology via NASA or similar-such government-funded organisations, and said technology is handed over to US civil industry for their commercial benefit.

There are many ways of supporting your own industry, directly or indirectly.

This continual bleating by the USA about 'the subsidised Airbus' is total hypocrisy, and part of the game.

[alf5071h]

“Boeing … they can't afford to lose this contest - the problem being they can't afford to win it either.....

For discussion - ‘what if’ one party wins the contract (Airbus), but the agreement is that other party (Boeing) ‘builds’ the aircraft.
Perhaps there is a behind the scenes Airbus – Boeing tie up (not commercial aircraft); thus benefiting both manufacturers and national aspirations. There may be inter governmental support – now why did Airbus rebid … ?

With the appearance of a third party (good, cheap alternative – for use elsewhere in the world) there would be even more impetus to have a managed, shared, world-wide solution – kill off the opposition.
The result would be to have the most suitable, cost-effective product; US manufacture (assembly or fitting) solves the US politics, but doesn’t exclude Airbus manufacture – or even building airframes for Boeing completion as well as world wide marketing.

Funnier things happen in aviation – fighters for bananas, commercial jets for shoes.

[ORAC]

Ares:
EADS North America CEO Status Unknown After Plane Crash (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ad3f59f8e-3597-4288-8298-03c1315c4b4a&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

EADS North America CEO Sean O'Keefe was on an aircraft that crashed in Alaska last night. He was among several guests traveling with former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) on a personal fishing trip, according to an EADS official. O'Keefe's son was thought to be on board as well.

CNN is reporting that five of the nine people onboard died. The whereabouts of the others are unknown. News reports indicate that several people on the ground were already at the site when emergency personnel arrived.

The crash apparently occurred around 8 pm Alaska time, or about midnight Eastern time. The aircraft was a DeHavilland DHC-3T, which is known for handling well at slow speeds. It crashed about 10 miles northwest of Aleknagik.

Apparently, there was inclement weather around the time of the crash. Bad weather also has been hampering rescue efforts, although some medical personnel made it to the crash site.

O'Keefe is the point person for one of EADS's biggest military campaigns. The North America wing of the company is again locked in competition against Boeing for the $35 billion KC-X tanker competition. The winner will build 179 refuelers for the U.S. Air Force to replace KC-135s.

Ralph Crosby and David Oliver, chairman of the board and chief operating officer (respectively) are stepping in for the time being to manage issues at the company. EADS North America spokesman Guy Hicks declined to comment on a succession plan should O'Keefe have died in the crash.

Stevens chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee from 1997-2005.

[OFBSLF]

The NY Times is reporting that O'Keefe survived the crash:

Sean O’Keefe, 54, a former NASA administrator who now is an executive with the European aerospace firm EADS, was also on the plane with his son, but they both survived, according to an official briefed on the crash who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing. Mr. O’Keefe, the official said, was among the three passengers airlifted to an Anchorage hospital.

Full text here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/11crash.html?src=me

[Saintsman]

The WTO report is expected to state that Boeing did receive illegal subsidies.

Duece?

World Trade Organisation to rule Boeing $24bn subsidies illegal - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8002423/World-Trade-Organisation-to-rule-Boeing-24bn-subsidies-illegal.html)

[GreenKnight121]

Not surprising... this puts any talk of "penalties" to rest... both companies got aid from their governments, neither company should be penalized... just look at the actual aircraft & associated production/support programs and make the d@mned decision!

[ORAC]

Why do I get the idea that the DoD is getting ready to award the contract to EADS, again....... :cool:

Air Force Times: Fuel capacity pivotal in tanker bid: experts (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/10/defense-kc-x-tanker-capacity-101910/)

Aviation Week: Additional Fuel May Pay Off In Tanker Competition (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2010/10/19/awx_10_19_2010_p0-263440.xml&headline=Additional%20Fuel%20May%20Pay%20Off%20In%20Tanker%2 0Competition)

Federal news Radio: Air Force warned against further tanker delay (http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=35&sid=2085910)

[FFP]

“I personally think that additional fuel offload is of great value” considering military scenarios that would require long-distance flights over the Pacific Ocean, Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS research, said on Tuesday. If a tanker carries more fuel it will be able to fly farther, stay on station longer and have more fuel left over for waiting aircraft, Grant said.

Classic. Can we have more people stating the bleeding obvious and getting paid bucket loads of money for doing so ?

Done some tanking (note the "T" there please) in my time and no one ever mentioned that nugget of information to me. Maybe it's because it didn't need saying........

Get the Airbus. Be done with it. Looks like the 787 just had 221 orders or something anyway......

[EW73]

You gotta be kiddin'

[Modern Elmo]

The result would be to have the most suitable, cost-effective product; US manufacture (assembly or fitting) solves the US politics, ...

Only if "US manufacture" = aircraft which are mostly US domestic content.

....but doesn’t exclude Airbus manufacture – or even building airframes for Boeing completion as well as world wide marketing.[/COLOR]

That does exclude mostly Yur-O-pee-un Airbus manufacture of any tankers. If Autobus of the Air wants to buld A320 tankers in Alabama, that might fly.

What that Air Force Times: Fuel capacity pivotal in tanker bid stuff means is that the Air Force will probably get some 777-based tankers, after considerable delay.

[ORAC]

New delay likely in tanker competition (http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/new-delay-likely-in-tanker-competition/)

We have been told by two sources, including one that is very close to the competition, that the Air Force is likely to announce a new delay soon in evaluation and award of a contract in the long-running KC-X tanker competition.

One source says the delay will be until the first quarter; the other didn’t have a new timeline but said the USAF was preparing to notify the competitors any time now.

We have written on several occasions, including a week ago, that another delay was likely. The USAF has already delayed the current competition, the third, from August and November to December and hinted a week ago another one was coming.

Boeing and EADS are the remaining bidders for the contract after the Government Accountability Office threw out a protest from US Aerospace, which was late submitting its bid.

The Air Force is evaluating the Boeing and EADS bids, and we’ve been told that the evaluation is proceeding more slowly than anticipated. The USAF issues what are called Evaluation Notices, or ENs, to the companies when it seeks additional information. This process is going slowly, we’re told.

There is also a point in which Boeing and EADS will be asked to submit Final Proposal Revisions, or FPRs (pronounced “fippers”), that amount to the best-and-final submissions. As of early this week, the FPR date had not been provided to the two companies.............

[BEagle]

....and the article goes on to state:The slip to after the first of the year has unintended political implications. Pundits are certain the Republicans will win control of the House of Representatives, which means US Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Boeing/WA), Boeing’s biggest booster in the House, will lose his chairmanship of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that will be the first stop for funding the tanker award. Dicks has long vowed to block any funding should EADS win the contract. Conventional wisdom, though generally overstated, is that EADS is closer to Republicans and Boeing is closer to Democrats in the tanker fight. In fact, there are members of both parties who are supporters of both companies.
(My bold type)

Aircraft capability seems to be of rather less importance to the US than politics....:rolleyes:

Tanker capability cannot be measured purely in terms of max fuel capacity - because the tanker will burn some of that fuel itself. You might have one tanker which holds 75 tonne and another which holds 70. You would think that the 75 tonne aircraft would be more capable - but if the latter burns fuel at an average rate of 7.5 tonne per hour and the former at only 5.5, in a 4 hr mission landing with 1 hr of fuel remaining (to keep the figures simple), the 75 tonne aircraft can offer a maximum of 37.5 tonnes to receivers, whereas the 70 tonne aircraft can offer 5 tonnes more.... On a 6 hr mission, the difference is 9 tonnes. Only if the mission was less than 1.5 hours would the 75 tonne aircraft offer any greater offload potential - perhaps rather unrealistic?

There's also the balanced field requirement for the tanker to take-off at MTOW under ISA/SL/Still Air conditions to consider... Something about which ol' Bubba Boeing likes to keep rather quiet.

Does he yet have an actual date for delivering the 4 long overdue tankers to the Italian air force....:\

[cornish-stormrider]

Bubba is in short - screwed. all that remains is for him to admit it. so do not hold your breath...

I can see a massive order going Bubba's way - after all we are not the only country with balls for a procurement procedure

[ORAC]

Corporate Crime, Corroding Planes: The Inside Story of The Air Force’s Tanker Mess (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/corporate-crime-corroding-planes-the-inside-story-of-the-air-forces-tanker-mess/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Blog+-+Danger+Room%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)

The article linked in the Washingtonian (http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/17244.html) is long but excellent, well worth the effort to read.

[Squirrel 41]

Well, with the shake up in the HASC and the leadership changing over - farewell, Ike Skelton - it'll be interesting to see what the changed politics looks like. Building A330s in Alabama suddenly looks a whole lot more politically savvy.

S41

[BEagle]

Pundits are certain the Republicans will win control of the House of Representatives, which means US Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Boeing/WA), Boeing’s biggest booster in the House, will lose his chairmanship of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that will be the first stop for funding the tanker award.And the 'pundits' were correct.

I guess that ol'Bubba must be sweating somewhat....:\

Still no Italian 767s - and still no prototype 767NoGo. Time to move on, Bubba.

[BEagle]

Well, it seems that, despite ol'Bubba's manifest incompetence concerning the delivery of the KC-767I to the Italian Air Force, IAI have delivered the first 767 tanker to a customer... See: PICTURES: Colombia accepts 767 tanker from IAI (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/04/349303/pictures-colombia-accepts-767-tanker-from-iai.html)

[ORAC]

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

USAF Gaffe Roils Tanker Contest (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5079218&c=AME&s=TOP)

'Clerical Error' Misaddressed Firms' Bid Evaluations

Earlier this month, the U.S. Air Force sent letters to rival planemakers about their bids for the $35 billion-dollar tanker contest - but it mixed them up, delivering its technical assessment of Boeing's bid to EADS, and vice versa.

The mistake may imperil the service's latest, bend-over-backwards effort to advance the 179-aircraft program, whose previous incarnation was dissolved after the Government Accountability Office ruled the service improperly gave the contract to EADS and Northrop Grumman.

"Earlier this month, there was a clerical error that resulted in limited amounts of identical source-selection information being provided to both KC-X offerors concerning their competitor's offer," Air Force spokesman Col. Les Kodlick said Nov. 20. "Both offerors immediately recognized the error and contacted the Air Force contracting officers."

Kodlick said the service is analyzing the information that was inadvertently disclosed and has taken steps to ensure that both competitors have had equal access to the same information.

Sources said each firm received the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessments (IFARA) of the other's bid. The IFARA models tanker operations in various scenarios to figure out how many tankers will be needed. The Air Force uses the assessment, along with fuel and construction cost estimates, to assay how risky the rivals' bids will be. In the last incarnation of the tanker contest, the IFARA was the single biggest risk factor.

Kodlick said the service also is trying to find out how the mistake happened and ensure that it is not repeated.

"The KC-X source selection will continue. This incident will not impact our schedule for source selection," Kodlick said. "However, certain aspects of the source selection have taken slightly longer than originally anticipated, and we currently expect the award to occur early next year."

Boeing and EADS formally declined to comment on the latest episode in the protracted refueling plane saga as Air Force officials briefed members of Congress...................

[iRaven]

If you look at the USAF's "Roadmap for UAS 2009 to 2047" you will see that they want MQ-L for KC-X. MQ-L is an unmanned version of X-48; Boeing's BWB offering.

Sorry to BEagle if you've just choked on your cornflakes!

iRaven

PS. MQ-L is also looking replace RJ, B52 and AWACS around 2025

[JFZ90]

Sources said each firm received the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessments (IFARA) of the other's bid. The IFARA models tanker operations in various scenarios to figure out how many tankers will be needed. The Air Force uses the assessment, along with fuel and construction cost estimates, to assay how risky the rivals' bids will be. In the last incarnation of the tanker contest, the IFARA was the single biggest risk factor.

Whilst mistakes can happen this does seem rather suspicious.

It will be interesting to see if this disclosure could have a material affect on any best and final phase (if there is to be one).

[BEagle]

Whether or not the USAF is able to keep its elderly fleet of KC-135R and KC-10A serviceable until 2025, when things such as this:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/wing.jpgmight possibly come into service is a risk which only the US might be able to answer....

Until then, the KC-X is probably the best solution. The mind-blowing incompetence of supplying each others' confidential IFARA information to rival bidders is simply incredible....:hmm:

[ORAC]

Whilst mistakes can happen this does seem rather suspicious Perhaps a way to provide a justification for reversing the previous resistance to the idea of splitting the order - especially if the 330 was coming out ahead....

EADS Won't Rule Out Protest Over Tanker Mistake (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5091239&c=AME&s=AIR)

..........Some analysts and journalists are wondering whether the mixup will force the Air Force and Pentagon officials to split their tanker purchase between the two bidders.

O'Keefe neither endorsed nor objected to the Air Force buying EADS as well as Boeing tankers, saying that his company is ready to respond to whatever the service decides it needs to do.

"There have been a number of acquisition scenarios put forward over the last several years, split buy being one approach that is appealing to some," EADS spokesman Jamie Darcy said in a statement sent to reporters about two hours later.................

[effects]

It just keeps on going..........
latest,
KC-X competition delayed as evaluation process roiled by politics, USAF errors (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/23/350072/kc-x-competition-delayed-as-evaluation-process-roiled-by-politics-usaf.html)

[iRaven]

Maybe a reduced KC-X buy is being "set up" by this apparent gaff, so they buy only a few to replace the reeeeally knackered 135s and KC10s - then roll on for a full order of MQ-L?

:}

[sumps]

Well at least they could of been a little more subtle and left the documents on the back seat of car or on a train...like we do in this country...See Here (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jNM2U4SiwHnOzOMIZAY9czlucTwQ?docId=CNG.70ca6ac7dd6df31 9b0e596db94d300bd.561)

[NorthernKestrel]

More KC-X analysis here...

"Indiana Jones and the Quest for KC-X tankers"

Indiana Jones and the Quest for KC-X tankers | Aerospace Insight (http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/aerospace-insight/2010/11/kc-x-quest/)

[Ian Corrigible]

EADS poised to win Air Force tanker contest, analyst says
al.com (http://blog.al.com/live/2010/12/eads_poised_to_win_air_force_t.html) Monday, December 06, 2010

The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. will win the U.S. Air Force tanker contract over rival Boeing Co., according to a leading defense analyst.

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said EADS has emerged as the clear favorite for the coveted deal, based on the Air Force's internal analysis of the two competing bids.

"Boeing has lost this competition," Thompson said, citing conversations with Boeing executives. "The only question now is whether they choose to protest the award, and I'm not sure they will."

Neither Boeing nor EADS would comment Sunday.

The Air Force said it expects to announce a winner for the potential $40 billion contract as early as next month. Chicago-based Boeing and EADS, the parent company of Airbus, are vying for the lucrative work to build 179 jet tankers for the Air Force.

It's the second round of competition between the American and European defense giants in a contest marked by fierce political fighting and prodigious marketing campaigns.

The battle has big stakes in Mobile. EADS has said that, if successful, it plans to assemble its KC-30 tankers at a $600 million, 1,500-worker factory to be constructed at Brookley Field.

Boeing has proposed to assemble its KC-767 tankers on its existing commercial assembly lines in Everett, Wash., and modify them for the military in Wichita, Kan.

EADS, then part of a team led by Northrop Grumman Corp., won the tanker contract in 2008. But the deal unraveled after federal auditors, acting on a protest filed by Boeing, found problems with the way the Air Force conducted its review.

That led to a new competition beginning in July, when Boeing and EADS submitted new bids on the contract.

Thompson said Boeing executives concluded last week - after getting a look at the Air Force's technical analysis of the two competing planes - that they were beaten.

The Air Force sent the confidential analysis, known as an Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment, to each of the companies in mid-November. But it mistakenly included a disk containing the Boeing analysis in the package shipped to EADS, and vice versa.

Both companies acknowledged that they received the errant disks and said they notified the Air Force as soon as they became aware of the mistake.

The Air Force called the mix-up a "clerical error" and said it took steps to ensure that neither side was put at a disadvantage. One of those steps, according to the Air Force, was to release the Boeing analysis to EADS and the EADS analysis to Boeing.

"We gave both competitors equal access to the information," Air Force spokesman Col. Les Kodlick said. "We view that as leveling the playing field."

Thompson, who has advocated for Boeing in the tanker contest, said Friday that he spoke to Boeing officials close to the competition. He said that, after reviewing the data, they concluded that EADS held a substantial edge in the Air Force's assessment.

"Basically they saw how they stacked up in the warfighting effectiveness analysis, and they did not stack up well," Thompson said. "The Air Force continues to favor the larger plane" offered by EADS.

The IFARA analysis is based on a complex computer modeling program that measures the effectiveness of each plane in a series of battlefield scenarios. The score could weigh heavily in a tight competition between two aircraft that offer different features.

Boeing has promoted its smaller KC-767 as "optimum sized" for the Air Force's needs, able to land on more runways and bring fuel closer to the front lines of combat.

EADS has touted the greater capability of its KC-30, a bigger plane that can carry larger amounts of cargo and passengers in addition to fuel.

Thompson said Boeing had some objections to the way the Air Force structured the analysis, but that the company's greater concern was a "pattern of bias" that appeared to skew the competition in favor of EADS.

A chief complaint, he said, was the Air Force's decision to exclude as a factor in the competition a recent ruling by the World Trade Organization that Airbus received illegal subsidies from European governments.

But Thompson said Boeing may have a difficult time proving - for a second time - that the tanker competition was flawed.

"In the first round, the errors were so fundamental and obvious," he said. "The pattern is much more subtle this time."

The Air Force dismissed Thompson's accusation of bias.

"We are continuing to work hard to ensure a fair and open competition for the tanker contract, and absolutely take issue with any suggestion to the contrary," Kodlick said.
..........
I/C

[ORAC]

Well somebody's being economical with the truth..... :hmm:

Thompson said Boeing executives concluded last week - after getting a look at the Air Force's technical analysis of the two competing planes - that they were beaten. The Air Force sent the confidential analysis, known as an Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment, to each of the companies in mid-November. But it mistakenly included a disk containing the Boeing analysis in the package shipped to EADS, and vice versa.........

Thompson, who has advocated for Boeing in the tanker contest, said Friday that he spoke to Boeing officials close to the competition. He said that, after reviewing the data, they concluded that EADS held a substantial edge in the Air Force's assessment. "Basically they saw how they stacked up in the warfighting effectiveness analysis, and they did not stack up well," Thompson said. "The Air Force continues to favor the larger plane" offered by EADS.


Boeing keeps protest options open as KC-X questions linger (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/12/02/350424/boeing-keeps-protest-options-open-as-kc-x-questions.html)

The USAF initially said an investigation showed no proprietary data had been compromised on either side, but acknowledged on 1 December that one company accessed a computer file containing its competitors' data.

EADS has not denied that its employees gained access to the file, but says the compact disc was secured "the minute" the error was realised. Boeing, however, says two employees who received the compact disc recognised the problem before opening the file.

After inserting the disc into a classified laptop computer, the employees saw that the file name included an unexpected four characters - "K30B". EADS markets the US tanker version of the Airbus A330-200 as the KC-45, but previously advertised the aircraft as the KC-30B. The employees ejected the disc and called security, the company says. As the security team stored the disc in a sealed location, the employees notified the USAF of the potential error. "The air force gave them instructions that they followed completely," Boeing says. "It went the way it was supposed to."

[iRaven]

I told you so...

http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/aerospace-insight/files/2010/11/pic-bwb-2-300x222.jpg (http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/aerospace-insight/files/2010/11/pic-bwb-2.jpg)
Could the delayed tanker programme actually have a silver lining in bringing in new technology for KC-Y/Z? (Boeing)

Should this not happen and the programme be significantly delayed, there may also be another side-effect – extra time for more radical tanker solutions to be put forward -especially for the follow-on KC-Y/KC-Z contracts. By 2025, when the last of the initial batch of KC-X tankers should have been delivered, Blended Wing Bodies (BWB) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_wing_body) aircraft may be viable. Boeing/NASA, for example, are still continuing flight tests with the X-48 scale BWB demonstrator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-48)(Made by UK’s Cranfield Aerospace (http://www.cranfieldaerospace.com/)) and a flying wing design could offer a breakthrough in volume and efficiency for a military tanker/transport. Without airline passengers to certify the aircraft for, a tanker would be an ideal first application of BWB technology.

The only bit missing from this is that X-48 is unmanned!

iRaven

[BEagle]

Even ol' Bubba Boeing dropped the idea of BWB airliners after receiving some very negative passenger reaction to the seat layout proposals...

Just consider this. In a normal wide-body airliner, such as the superlative Airbus A330, if you have an 8-abreast economy class 2+4+2 seating layout, the outermost passengers will experience a vertical motion of about 27" if the aircraft banks at 15deg - which is a normal option for 'passenger comfort'. To carry 240 passengers, you will need roughly 30 x 8 abreast rows.

If you carry 240 passengers in a BWB with 'amphitheatric' 24-abreast seating arranged in 10 rows, you will need 6 aisles for access / cabin service etc., leading to a 2+4+4+4+4+4+2 seating layout. Which means that the outermost passengers will experience a vertical motion of 27" in every 5 deg bank - I doubt whether this will be conducive to passenger comfort as, unlike a 15 deg AoB turn, a 5 deg AoB bank will probably be reversed to wings level rather sooner. Much as the Spams like their rendition-class seating in tanker-transports, I predict that by 2025 even they will have recognised that military passengers have basic human rights too and that ultra-wide bodied aircraft with 'amphitheatric' seating won't be acceptable.

Boeing once proposed a design with 10 passenger bays, 5 per deck. Most bays contained 2 triple seats (or 1 double and 1 triple) plus a central aisle. This required no less than 10 aisles and would have meant very few passengers indeed would have had any outside view; probably rather important to the poor souls in the outermost seats where every 4 degree twitch in turbulence would feel like a turn reversal in a normal aircraft.

Which leaves either single-role tankers, or tanker/freighters. Either of which would be less flexible than a true multi-role tanker transport such as the outstanding KC-45A.

The BWB is an elegant idea, but rather seems to be a solution to a problem which doesn't really exist.

[iRaven]

I'm sure Mr O'Leary of RyanAir could market the outer seats to adreline junkies! ;)

He could sell ice to the Eskimos and has a number of famous quotes over the years:
1. On the airline’s no-frills business plan:
‘Our strategy is like Wal-Mart: We pile it high and sell it cheap’. (1994)
2. On charging for in-flight toilet use:
‘If someone wanted to pay £5 to go to the toilet I would carry them myself. I would wipe their bums for a fiver’. (2009)
3. On further possible in-flight charges:
‘At the moment the ice is free, but if we could find a way of targeting a price on it, we would’. (2005)

Anyway, fair point on BWB for pax carrying, but for AAR fuel tanks I don't believe it would be an issue?

iRaven

[BEagle]

No, it wouldn't be an issue - except that single role tankers are rather restricted in their usefulness and offer poor value for the financial outlay. Which is why the current requirement is for multi-role tanker transports.

[ORAC]

Screw the BWB as a tanker, carrying around all that extra weight.

You either want a MRTT, or a dedicated tanker. The BWB is useless as a MRTT, for reasons as explained, and if yiy want a dedicated tanker you want a Northrop Force Employment Tanker, (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2002/2002%20-%202480.html) cutting out all the extraneous weight and manpower.

[ORAC]

Looks like the writing is on the wall....

Motley Fool: Did Boeing Just Lose the Tanker Contract? (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/12/08/did-boeing-just-lose-the-tanker-contract.aspx)

DoDBuzz: EADS Commits to KC-X Plant (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/12/08/eads-commits-to-kc-x-plant/)

[BEagle]

Some hilariously red-necked comments on those websites!

By the way, ORAC - what's the latest gen on the Italian KC-767I farce? Has Ol' Bubba Boeing managed yet to get the wing pods to work properly - within the customer's required flight envelope, that is?

[ORAC]

And another one bites the dust for Boeing.....

Flightglobal: Brazil to seek deal for A330 tankers (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/12/09/350761/brazil-to-seek-deal-for-a330-tankers.html)

After issuing a request for proposals in September, the Brazilian air force's KC-X tanker/transport procurement has taken an unexpected turn. Despite having initially forecast the participation of at least three bidders, sources in Brasilia indicate that Airbus Military's A330 multi-role tanker/transport might be selected before the end of the year.

Launched earlier in the decade to replace the air force's four Boeing KC-137 (707) tanker/transports, the use of which has been hampered by low availability rates over the last few years, the KC-X programme was fast-tracked early this year.

Problems with the service's sole long-range air transport assets were highlighted by its provision of only a small number of relief flights following the earthquake in Haiti early this year. Its KC-137s were then unable to take part in the 23-day Cruzex V exercise that was conducted during November.

However, it was the type's role as a long-range presidential transport that spurred the government to seek a quick replacement. Brazil purchased one Airbus A319CJ in 2005, but this is unable to satisfy seating and range requirements for longer presidential trips.

With an immediate requirement for two tanker/transports and an option for a third, Brazil's KC-X programme calls for one aircraft to be reconfigurable for presidential transport duties.

The air force originally expected Airbus to tender a proposal based on its A330-200-based MRTT design, with Boeing and Israel Aerospace Industries - the latter teamed with Brazil's VEM - to submit offers based on modified 767s. However, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has indicated that a selection will be finalised later this month.

[ORAC]

My, my, such throwing of toys out of the cot by a Boeing mouthpiece. I think the telling point is the editor's postscript. The aviation press seem to be less on board with Boeing this time round....

Tanker Wars: Why Boeing Is Losing (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/120848/is-boeing-losing-the-tanker-war%3F.html)

[delta3]

I have been rereading this thread with great interest.

As a European that lived and worked in the US, I start getting the feeling that the US patriotism gets in the way of liberalism. I would say it starts looking as "Free competition ... as long as we win...".

Perhaps a cynical remark about the alleged subsidies (with whom as a tax payer I totally don't agree, this is a culture clash): America should be grateful to get a plane that cost me a lot of taxes. By the way in the US I was living in Taxachusetts before prop 2 and 1/2.

m2c
d3

[ORAC]

Ares: FSTA Dry Run (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5513878d-620d-4c9d-ae03-b44d65dea93e&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

irbus Military has completed initial trials of the fuselage refueling unit for the RAF's Future Strategic Transport Aircraft. The FSU is the certline hose-and-droge refueling system.

The dry contacts were made using a Spanish air force EF-18, since FSTA's development is taking place in Spain.

Even if not intentionally, using a Spanish air force fighter is somewhat symbolic since the FSTA fleet will likely be spending a good part of its time refueling non-RAF aircraft, given the U.K.'s fighter inventory is in sharp decline even as the number of FSTAs being acquired under the Air Tanker fee-for-service arrangement remains constant at 14 aircraft.

The test flight Dec. 13 lasted 160 minutes, and covered an operating envelop of 8,000-35,000 ft. altitude and speeds of 180-325 knots, the manufacturer says.

The FRU can provide a higher fuel flow-rate than the underwing hose-and-drogue system. Half the fleet will be equipped with the FRU.

[Two's in]

Well whatever, happens, it's not happening anytime soon...

Air Force tanker decision likely delayed by Senate hearing - TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/139559-air-force-tanker-decision-likely-delayed-by-senate-hearing)

But now, there is mounting evidence that an award will not be possible until March, or perhaps later, says Loren Thompson, a defense insider who is the COO at the Lexington Institute, citing conversations with executives.

The driving force behind this latest delay is a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing slated for Jan. 27. At that session, the panel will seek answers from Air Force officials about a mishap that saw the service send data about EADS's and Boeing's tanker bids.

[Saintsman]

It seems that the 767 is not considered good enough by Beoing to be submitted as a contender for the Indian Air Force requirements.

Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/21/352181/indian-tanker-contest-draws-airbus-ilyushin-bids-but-boeing-stays.html)

[GreenKnight121]

Nice biased distortion of the reason.

1. Boeing was going to offer India a variant of the USAF-spec KC-767, not the Italian/Japanese-spec version.

2. Boeing simply knows that, if the USAF again chooses the Airbus KC-45, that India won't pay for the development of the variant, and will kick it out of the contest on cost grounds.

3. Thus, Boeing would lose all money it put into the Indian tanker bid effort.

4. In order to remain in the contest, Boeing would have to offer to pay for much of the development costs themselves, thus losing massive money on the deal.


It is simply a business act... without a guarantee of the USAF paying for the development of the new version of the KC-767, Boeing will lose money on the Indian deal no matter what they do, therefore there is no reason to bid.

[Squirrel 41]

GK121,

1. Boeing was going to offer India a variant of the USAF-spec KC-767, not the Italian/Japanese-spec version.

2. Boeing simply knows that, if the USAF again chooses the Airbus KC-45, that India won't pay for the development of the variant, and will kick it out of the contest on cost grounds.

3. Thus, Boeing would lose all money it put into the Indian tanker bid effort.

4. In order to remain in the contest, Boeing would have to offer to pay for much of the development costs themselves, thus losing massive money on the deal.

Fair enough. But your post also highlights that as the Airbus KC-X bid is closely based on the RAAF's KC-30 design, which is actually flying and transferring fuel - albeit with a problem last week - Boeing's KC-X bid is much less mature and therefore has considerably more technical risk.

It will be interesting to see which way the USAF jumps on this one - personally, (and I claim no expertise in this) all the indicators are that the Airbus should win on merit. Again.

S41

[GreenKnight121]

All valid points, and I agree with your conclusion.

The KC-767 is "good enough to enter in India's competition"... but it is also risky & expensive, so the chances of winning India without first winning USAF are non-existent, and the chances of winning USAF are not good.

[Squirrel 41]

GK121,

Sorry, I get your point - I completely agree.

S41

[ORAC]

Ares: A Tanker Clue (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a444f7b7f-0a64-4f56-9381-0184b2aeaed6&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
Want to know the outcome of the USAF's tanker decision? There's a big clue over at the Forbes website.

Uberconsultant to defense companies Dr Loren Thompson issues what is little less than a Jeremiad against Airbus (http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011/01/31/air-force-tanker-program-flies-into-new-political-storm/?partner=yahootix), and the European governments who have been its primary bankers throughout much of its development. It is government subsidy on a massive scale, Thompson charges, which will allow Airbus to undercut Boeing's price on the tanker deal with a larger aircraft, and win the contract. And, Thompson predicts, the result will be another furious political battle: Having declared in his State of the Union speech that waning competitiveness has brought America to a new “Sputnik moment,” the President will be asked to award the biggest military hardware contract ever to a foreign country — mainly because it was able to leverage illegal trade subsidies to underbid its U.S. rival. That should provoke quite a political storm on Capitol Hill, where members have already alleged that predatory business practices by Airbus have cost the U.S. aerospace industry many tens of thousands of jobs.
I don't buy outright Thompson's argument that the claimed $20 billion in subsidies - which is a lot of money, but is spread over 40 years for a company that had $85 billion in sales in 2010 and scored a single order for $15.6 billion a couple of weeks ago - is what allows Airbus to undercut Boeing today.

It would be worth seeing the mechanism by which remaining government support in the form of launch aid would allow Airbus to sign a money-losing tanker contract, or an explanation for why Airbus would want to spend that money locking up the military tanker market, which compared with the core commercial business is like a Cessna 150 alongside an A380.

But that's a little beside the point.

What Thompson, and some on Capitol Hill, are advocating is a retroactive change in the tanker competition rules, to throw out any decision in favor of Airbus. Such a decision would subordinate the Pentagon's judgment to that of Congress, delay the program and increase its costs, and force the USAF to buy its second-choice aircraft. It's hard to consider an action that would be more damaging to European-US defense trade interests.

One final observation: Thompson's clients usually keep him well informed, and he's saying bluntly that "the Air Force is planning to award the $35 billion tanker contract to its European rival". The piece in Forbes reads a lot like what doctrine writers call "shaping the battlespace".

In the fall of 2001, with the Joint Strike Fighter source selection in its final weeks, it was Boeing's advocates who started to call for a teaming arrangement, rather than winner-take-all. It seems like the same message is coming across now.

[LowObservable]

My impression right now is that there is not a lot of difference in the two proposals in terms of US jobs. Engines and a lot of systems and avionics are already US-sourced. EADS will do more tin-bending outside the US, but has the upside potential of commercial freighters and export tankers, which Boeing doesn't offer.

So what we're really seeing is an internal fight between EADS states and Boeing states, wrapped up in the flag.

[Squirrel 41]

LO,

Yes, almost certainly. Which given the GOP majority in the House makes the choice of assembly plant in Alabama look astute - GE engines are also assembled all over the place.

Years ago I recall being told that the Space Station was uncancellable on this basis - NASA had Space Station contracts in 433 of 435 Congressional Districts and all 50 States. Value for money was the key driver for each contract, no doubt...:hmm:

S41

[ORAC]

Remarks from the head of US Transportation command which are relevant for the KC-X programme - and equally for the RAF/Airtaker fleet and it's lack of of own AAR capability....

Danger For Strategic Airlift in Central Asia (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ac855e8b4-5061-475e-90de-268d68f77000&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

.........McNabb also noted big savings from adjusting C-17 use in moving supplies to Afghanistan and predicted huge savings would be generated if a replacement tanker were available.

Because of the need to refuel C-17s during longer trips to Afghanistan, Transcom logisticians discovered it is 45% more efficient to use the new airlifters for only the last leg of the trip. Savings are pegged at $110 million to $116 million per month through a reduction in aerial refuelings, he says.

The savings from modifying in-flight refueling to make them more efficient could be further increased by introduction of a new tanker.

“We pass more fuel than we carry cargo,” McNabb says. Tankers constitute the majority of Transcom’s 900 daily sorties. But because most KC-135s cannot receive fuel in flight, they have to carry that fuel and weight back to their base. The average amount of fuel returned to base is 35,000-40,000 lb. per aircraft.

“They are carrying that all the time,” McNabb says. “We’re talking about 5 million lbs. a day. If you can leave that fuel in the fight, you only carry it one time. [Saving] 20 to 25 percent of the fuel bill is a lot.”

However, the new tanker designs would allow the remaining fuel to be transferred to other tankers remaining in refueling orbits. The savings in fuel are calculated in the millions of gallons.

[BEagle]

But because most KC-135s cannot receive fuel in flight, they have to carry that fuel and weight back to their base. The average amount of fuel returned to base is 35,000-40,000 lb. per aircraft.

Qué? What he mean??

The tanker will always need enough fuel to return and land safely - I don't know what the Spams do, but the UK always had a 'minimum off-task fuel' (MOTF) which was the fuel state needed to RTB with sufficient fuel to be able to go-around, transit and land at the alternate, plus appropriate contingency fuel.

Whether or not the tanker can refuel itself in flight merely influences the on-task time, not the MOTF. Reach MOTF and Bingo, home you have to go!

Surely the Spams aren't considering letting a tanker become tanker-dependent on an AAR anchor? Or flying without enough fuel for an alternate?

Efficient tanker planning has always been rather more of a European thing than a US thing, simply because the US usually had the luxury of just opening another tin of 135s and filling the sky with jets rather than having to work out a 'cunning plan' with just a handful as the UK is obliged to.

In GW1, we often used a pair of VC10s outbound with the attack formation, then one would transfer any surplus to the other before going home, leaving only one contingency tanker available for unplanned AAR if the attack formation needed it. Perhaps that's the sort of thing McNabb actually meant - transfer spare gas to another tanker and RTB at MOTF?

[ORAC]

IIRC correctly, during GW1, the USAF was very rigid concerning planned take-off, task and landing times. To the extent that even if planned missions cancelled the tankers till flew so they could land back at the right time to meet their next parking slot and time and fuel upload.

So they'd either have to burn it, dump it or give it away to make the expected fuel on the ground.

[Saintsman]

Sounds like an accountant has been busy....:hmm:

[Udonkey]

During the Kosovo conflict the USAF policy (at least initially) was to offload 'spare' fuel from the off task tankers to a 'reliability' tanker (usually a KC10) orbiting over the Adriatic, enabling fuel to remain airborne and 'on task' and the returning tankers to leave the area on a suitable minimum.

This reliability tanker would then be available to off load at short notice to any 'extra' task or replace a no show tanker! Damn good idea, except for the poor reliability tanker crews who stayed on task for sometimes up to 10 hours just burning a hole in the Ozone over the Adriatic!! Every now and then the boredom being shattered with a refuel up to maximum AUW and coffin corner! Difficult to say the least and on one occasion resulted in an over run and boom going through the skin!! Refuels to max AUW stopped very soon after.

Of course it did mean that the reliability tankers had to have the ability to receive fuel. A lesson the USAF seem to have learnt, with I understand, a requirement for the replacement tanker aircraft (whatever it/they may be) to have a receptacle.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Of course it did mean that the reliability tankers had to have the ability to receive fuel. A lesson the USAF seem to have learnt, with I understand, a requirement for the replacement tanker aircraft (whatever it/they may be) to have a receptacle.


Of course the RAF would never make that mistake with FSTA would they? It is coming with the ability to receive fuel, isn't it? :ugh:

[TBM-Legend]

RAAF KC-30 gives and receives...:D

Also in this day of coalition activity why no boom on the FSTA???

[Art Field]

The reason the FSTA does not have a receiver capability is because it was not a requirement of the initial request back in 2000. As one of the government of the times wonderful PFI schemes no bidder was going to offer anything that was not asked for so it is not provided.

[Squirrel 41]

As usual, Mr AF is correct.

Worse, when asked "WTF, over" when it was so much more expensive than the much more capable KC-45 variant (would've had all kinds of things the UK couldn't have used - boom, freight door, freight floor, receiver capability), it was "all very complicated" and in any event "we didn't need these capabilities anyway" because "OA has demonstrated it was irrelevant".

B0llocks...

S41

[Saintsman]

The FSTA A330 was offered with a probe in the early days but was deemed unnecessary by the powers that be and so the idea was dropped.

[BEagle]

Also in this day of coalition activity why no boom on the FSTA???

About a million years ago, when the PFI thing first came up, the topic of FSTA+boom was raised with one of the bidders.

From an RAF point of view, I explained that the primary advantage of having a boom was that the wretched bean counters would have to forget their stupid idea of a 2-person AAR flight deck for FSTA, as a boom would dictate the need for a boom operator. Otherwise, it was an option which would include a training burden, both initial and recurrent and was really only a 'might be nice to have' for interoperability benefits, but was very far from being essential.

As for equipping the FSTA for operation in the receiver role, the bidding consortia (one of whom was spectacularly naive) announced that their proposals met the spec - or rather, the Indicative Statement of User Need..:hmm: - so a probe/receptacle would be outside the stated need. But if the RAF wanted it, they would have to pay the extra....

"We always did it that way on Victors" mentality initially condemned the TriStar to have an AAR probe. I recall doing trials (in the VC10K tanker) and the success rate / time required for the golden-gloved test pilot to make contact and stay in at the specified IAS wasn't that good. The probe was very noisy and fatigued the TriStar airframe - and there were few operational requirements which would have justified it....

Whilst prodding is indeed the sport of kings, the cost/benefit of equipping the UK FSTA fleet for operation in the receiver role just wasn't worth it. Pity!

Dragging a boom around the sky for the odd occasion when an American (non-USN) aircraft might need fuel from an FSTA seems to me to be an expensive waste of fuel/time/training in the current era.

If you want interoperability for NATO fighters, ensure they have probes!

[D-IFF_ident]

A probe on an A330? At 600 USG/min that's got to be the best part of an hour in contact to get 100 tonnes. You'd want a UARSSI surely?

[Squirrel 41]

At 600 USG/min that's got to be the best part of an hour in contact to get 100 tonnes. You'd want a UARSSI surely?

Right, which must make probe refuelling an E-3D for say half a fuel load must be great fun. How long does this take?

So, yes, UARSSI pls (oh look, like E-3Ds). And a KC-45A would be great with all the bells and whistles (and RR Trents.)

S41

[Art Field]

I hate to argue with you Beags so I put forward a few points that could have allowed the FSTA to have at least the fittings for a probe, with occasional trips for instructor currency, even if the probe itself was normally kept on the shelf. History is not bunk and yes the Victor 2 was never going to receive at night but it sure did. The Tristar was not doing much tanking when they removed the probes (some say it kept them awake) and then it did not come into the thinking of the ex-Tristar staff at MOD at the time of the contract offer. Also at that time the thought was of 23 FSTA airframes, now down to 13 and only a few of those available on a day to day basis, a handful as you say. I would argue that a max onload for an A300 would be closer to 45 minutes but, in practice, average onloads would be significantly less. Surely todays pilots can cope with that (after all we did). I agree the FSTA has no need of boom facilities but whose to know what long range tasking will arrive in the future where tanker-tanker will prove invaluable.

[ORAC]

DoD Buzz: Carter on Mergers: We’re Watching (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/16/carter-on-industry-ma-were-watching-closely/)

Ashton Carter, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer today emphasized that the DoD will not condone defense industry mergers done for the sake of short term profit over the long term health of the defense industrial base; warning that the Pentagon will keep a close watch on future mergers and acquisitions to ensure they result in long-term good........

....The acquisition czar then went on to say that the Pentagon will also have to buy its weapons on the international market, not just from domestic sources due to the fact that when the best weapons can be found abroad, “we owe it to the warfighter” to buy them. Hmm, Does this make anyone else think KC-X?

He also called on foreign nations to open their doors to purchasing U.S. weapons in a similar manner.........

[ORAC]

Defnse News: USAF Could Award KC-X Contract by End of Feb. (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5730502&c=AME&s=AIR)

The U.S. Air Force will award the contract for the long-running KC-X tanker contract before the end of the month, two senior defense officials said.

"We'll roll-off the KC-X, hopefully, at the end of this month," said Maj. Gen. David Scott, U.S. Air Force director of operational capability requirements at an aerospace and defense conference hosted by Aviation Week on Feb. 16.

Less than 20 minutes later at the same conference, Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale echoed Scott's words. "We're asking for $900 million for the KC-X tanker, hopefully to make an award within the month," Hale said.

Though not directly linked to the comments made by the two senior officials, earlier in the day Ralph Crosby, EADS's North America chief, held a press conference telegraphing the company's revised final bid, which he said, offered lower costs.

Dan Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va., said that there is "general sense in the community" that the Air Force will select the EADS Airbus A330 derived tanker.

Offering a concurring opinion, Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., added that politically, the A330 might be an easier choice for the Air Force despite the objections in Congress.

However, no matter which tanker the Air Force chooses, a protest is all but guaranteed, he said.

[NURSE]

given Rolls Royce are about to be chopped from F35 engine programme wonder how many non US bidders/contractors will survive the DoD budget cuts

[GreenKnight121]

You mean the GE/RR F136... which is the "back-up" engine for the F-35?

A US company (GE) is losing out on this as well.

Note that GE has the majority share on this engine... but it is a couple of years behind the primary engine for the aircraft (P&W's F135), and would still take a considerable sum of money to complete for service.

That is just how it is when a government has way overspent itself... unnecessary things, like a second engine design for an aircraft where the primary engine is meeting all requirements and has basically completed all development, tend to get chopped in the process of cutting back on wasteful spending.

[ORAC]

U.S. Air Force Tanker Award will be Announced Thursday (http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22280/?SID=337fe8a2b36b5f2a1e45c2d95a72abc6)

09:39 GMT, February 23, 2011 The U.S. Air Force will announce the winner of the $35 billion KC-X tanker contract on Thursday, February 24 after financial markets close. Judging from the frequency with which Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter has been talking up the notion of a "globalized" defense market recently, European aerospace giant EADS is the winner.

If EADS rival Boeing has indeed lost, it probably will not issue substantive comments on the outcome until it has been debriefed by the Air Force. Once it has heard how the decision was made, it can determine whether there are grounds for a formal protest.

EADS is already acting like it has won, which isn't surprising since it knows its plane received a higher warfighting effectiveness rating. Boeing could challenge the rating methodology and several other facets of the selection process, but since price is the key discriminator in the outcome, it is more likely to pursue a political strategy focusing on EADS use of prohibited trade subsidies in developing and marketing its planes.

[woodja51]

Assuming that the KC-30 wins the USAF tanker bid, does anyone out there have info on the training for the Saudi's and UAE on the jet...?

I am ex tanker /330 military and it seems that there may be opportunities to do some training for them in the Middle East perhaps - looking for some contacts within the CASS/AIM area doing this at the moment to get a chat going, find more info.

I believe the UAE air force guys are flying the 330 with Etihad at the moment but will need to be trained over onto the KC/30?
thanks

WJA

[Flyt3est]

Unless the US DoD have struck some kind of deal with Boeing (Maybe accelerate KC-Y on the premise that it will require a smaller tanker, ergo Boeing 767) then I am afraid I think todays announcement on KC-X will be nothing more than a paper work excercise preceding an intense legal battle. I doubt we will see the real KC-X award this side of 2013 unless some kind of behind the scenes deal is struck with both bidders.

:rolleyes:

[JFZ90]

So is this really going to be announced tonight at/after 21:00 GMT?

[ORAC]

/24/2011 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics Ashton Carter, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz will announce the KC-X tanker contract award at 5:10 p.m. EST, Feb. 24. (22:10 UTC)

This news conference will stream live on the Pentagon Channel website, The Pentagon Channel (http://www.pentagonchannel.mil).

[JFZ90]

Thanks for the link - 2.5 hours to go.......

[D-IFF_ident]

BOEING! What a surprise.

[NURSE]

Surprise Surprise

Beoing wins. The USAF having been told to go away and come back with the "Right" Answer has bought beoing

Boeing news | Boeing wins huge Air Force tanker contract | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2014320058_tanker25.html)

[BEagle]

Now watch Boeing struggle with their high-risk programme, pods which don't work properly etc. etc.....

Still, they're doing OK with the 7-late-7......

[JFZ90]

In short...."Boeing met the essential requirements & was >1% cheaper".

Question from floor - "so why is the new Boeing EMD phase more expensive than the one placed with EADS in 2008?"

Cough....

[l7986]

Woulda been nice to work on something that was built by Airbus. :*

[GreenKnight121]

The development phase may cost more, but the USAF was looking at total program costs including estimated life-time operational costs... and apparently that last was where Boeing made up the difference and pulled ahead.


Funny... back years ago I was supporting Boeing, then I slowly was won over to the Euro side... and now am somewhat annoyed at this, but not really surprised.

Now the USAF needs to just do the smart thing and announce the non-competition, sole-source award of KC-Y (KC-135R replacement) to EADS.

Note that this was expected to total around 195 aircraft (15 per year 2024-2036), while KC-X (KC-135E replacement) is 175 production aircraft & 4 developmental aircraft.

Perhaps the balance can be adjusted to 200 KC-46A and 170 KC-45B (new competition, new variant letter), just to prevent any Boeing protests?


The KC-Z (KC-10 replacement) was expected to be in production starting in ~2036... that would be the next real competition (9 per year from 2037-2048, for ~108 total).

[Flyt3est]

Beags

Now watch Boeing struggle with their high-risk programme, pods which don't work properly etc. etc.....


Sorry I couldn't tell you earlier mate, but the "All American" KC-767NG will have BRITISH wing pods and a BRITISH designed centreline hose and drogue unit on board. Manufacturing will be done in the USA, but the design, development and qualification will be done here in blighty.

Boeing Wins Pentagon Tanker Job - WSJ.com (http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline%2Ewsj%2Ecom%2Farticle%2FSB1 0001424052748703408604576164642983838266%2Ehtml&urlhash=kWbF&_t=tracking_disc)

Boeing "shoring up its position as a US national champion.." Priceless.. :D

I think the KC-767NG when all is said and done will be about as American as beef and ale pie!! :ok:

[BEagle]

Good to hear that news! At least the wing pods should now work - unlike the junk on the KC-767I. Perhaps the same company might now make the Italians an offer they can't refuse?

So it's just the very high risk flight deck design which is likely to cause programme slippage.

(Beef and ale pie - yum! Have you discovered the 'Pieminister' moo pie or pm pie? Made down Brizzle way.)

[keesje]

Boeing is trying to claim the "best" tanker won while politcians are claiming they won.

So probably politicians selected the "best" tanker this time.

Very amusing :)

I can imagine Lockheed is not so happy.

Some of the governments they export their machines to might be watching and learning here.

[D-IFF_ident]

The pods and pylons might be built by Cobham, but that doesn't mean they will work any better on the high wing-load 767. The Mk 905Es required aerodynamic modifications before they were matched to the A330 wing; I suspect the same problems Boeing have on Frankentanker Mk1 will re-emerge. The result will be an aircraft type over 35 years old before it gets close to entering service.

[BEagle]

Now that the Frankentanker has such enormous winglets, completely changing the flutter characteristics and vortex field of the old 767, pod aerodynamics will be a different problem than it was for the useless Smiths pod.

But Cobham should manage to solve it. A small tweak to the 907E sorted drogue nutation very quickly (not that it was actually that severe) for the A310MRTT.

It'll be interesting to see whether those big winglets will cause receiver pilots any disorientation issues when maintaining close formation in poor visibility. Probably not, but did anyone think about that?

Competition is no bad thing; the fact that the USAF chose second best is their problem. But their paper plane will have a significant UK content.

[Flyt3est]

D-IFF

When a refuelling pod is fitted to any new platform, invariably there will be different aerodynamic characteristics and loads. This is overcome by an aircraft type specific rear fairing on the pod, which affects the hose catenary and stability. Smiths could never solve it on 767, IAI did and Cobham will too, given that we solved it on every other aircraft.

:ok:

[Art Field]

It is not just a matter of shape of the pod fairing that affects the hose stability, the toe in or toe out of its mounting on the wing is also significant.

[Flyt3est]

Without wishing to get drawn into the exact and extensive list of factors affecting hose and drogue stability.....

[D-IFF_ident]

I guess if IAI could get pods to work on the 767 wing, albeit not the New ImaGenary Tanker with the big winglets, then it won't be a big challenge for Cobham. Interesting that Smiths (Boeing) couldn't do it on the OWN aircraft though - and the wing loading on the 767 will still be high compared to the 330.

[BEagle]

Interesting to note from an article in Flight that Ol' Bubba can't meet his claimed performance figures for the 'plastic plane' 7-late-7:

Boeing to miss 787 performance spec: Albaugh (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/15/354340/boeing-to-miss-787-performance-spec-albaugh.html)

Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh, for the first time, has acknowledged that the 787 will miss its intended performance specifications.

So is it hardly any wonder that Ol' Bubba is being coy about payload/range and performance details of the Frankentanker....?? Boeing can't meet their own claims for a straightforward (and long-overdue) airliner, so what hope is there for an unknown high-risk military aircraft which doesn't even exist yet?

[airsound]

This is the maiden flight of the first Airbus MRTT for the UAE. It's the seventh MRTT to fly.

Now, I know the US deal is done and dusted, and old news to boot, but remind me again when the first Boeing KC-46A is due to fly.....
http://www.pprune.org/[IMG]http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/UAE_MRTT.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/UAE_MRTT.jpg

airsound

[Jig Peter]

AvWeek (I think) reported recently that the latest Boeing presentation on the KC-46 showed that it's already changing from the beastie presented during the competion, particularly that the winglets have gone.
Of course, this could be that the artist who prepared the drawing missed them out, and the omission was spotted too late for the change to be made before the deadline (I know, it happens ...).

[JFZ90]

YouTube - BMW 5 Series Refuel