Originally Posted by
Jackonicko
OK, I'll bite.
1) what escape manoeuvre could a 330 not fly that a -135 and a -46 can?
2) which fixed wing aircraft can the 330 not refuel that a -46 can?
3) Airbus say that isn't so. Your evidence is....?
4) Which tanker bases could not accomodate a 330 because of taxyway restrictions? There are a host that a KC-46 can't operate from with full fuel because of runway length.....
!) I don't know the specific details of the maneuver, I suspect it is classified. However, this was one of the findings that was cited as why the evaluation of the bids was not up to snuff.
2) The V-22 comes to mind, there may be others.
3) Boeing (naturally) said it is, it was part of their protest and so did GAO. It is true that in their defense of the award Airbus relented, but apparently at the time of the analysis the USAF didn't get the guarantee they required.
4) I can't name the specific bases, but GAO found that indeed hundreds of millions of $ should have added to the costs of the KC-30 to cover this. Air Force acknowledged this was true. It is also true that the A330 needs less runway length that the 767. I assume this holds true for the tanker versions with full fuel, although Boeing claimed the KC-767 needed less runway than the KC-30 because it was smaller (ramp footprint for KC-767 was 25,000 ft², while KC-30 was 38,000 ft², and I assume that Airbus' numbers don't take into account its "receptacle credit which allows it cite a runway length with less that full fuel and "top off" once airborne). But runway length was not the issue here, both competitors met that requirement. The issue was ability to do full operations from a KC-135 base and the hangup was the taxiways and intersections, and to a lesser extent runway width and strength. Note that a KC-777 would have had the same issues, which is one of the reasons Boeing didn't try bidding that It would have had the same problems, and its capacity was not needed to meet the requirements of the solicitation.
GAO, in partly sustaining Boeing's protest, ruled that the competition was conducted in a flawed manner. Note that it did not say the award should have gone to Boeing, just that the way the award was made it was flawed.
Airbus could have bid an A300/310 based tanker but chose to go with the larger A330 because it was easier for them as the A300/310 line was planned to wind down and they were already working on the A330 MRTT anyway. This put them at a cost disadvantage.
Boeing waited until the RFP for the third came out before deciding to rebid the KC-767 because it better suited what USAF was asking for than a KC-777. The CEO of Northrop Grumman, Airbus' partner, in commenting on the RFP for the third competition said that the Air Force had shown a "clear preference," for a smaller tanker. He then stated that competing would impose, “contractual and financial burdens on the company that we simply cannot accept”. This whole thing could have been avoided had USAF simply revised the first competition's RFP to reflect their changed priorities and then competed, letting the chips fall where they may.
You can find a lot of this stuff in Aviation Week of the time.