More KC-46A woes....

[Commando Cody]

Jackonicko:

I'm not as good as you at embedding previous posts, so let me address
your concerns in this way, please.

Escape maneuver: I'm not sure what you mean by "So it can't actually be
stood up"? Although I don't think all the details are public knowledge,
from what I do know part of the maneuver involves accelerating away from
the receiving aircraft and climbing. The GAO specifically noted,
"...the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate the capability of Northrop
Grumman’s proposed aircraft to initiate emergency breakaway
procedures...".


V-22: GAO's finding was, "...the record did not show that the Air Force
reasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aircraft could
refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing, tanker-compatible aircraft...".
That the V-22 was one of the aircraft concerned came from an article, I
believe, in Aviation Week.

The maintenance issue and Airbus' relenting: Airbus may have changed
their mind after the award was protested. That's too late. The award
had to consider only what was being offered in the response to the RFP at
the time the solicitation closed. GAO again: "Specifically, the
solicitation required offerors to plan and support the agency to achieve
initial organic depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of
the first full-rate production aircraft. Northrop Grumman was informed
several times by the Air Force that the firm had not committed to the
required 2-year timeframe, but Northrop Grumman refused to commit to the
required schedule".

The specific bases that I couldn't name: That's because I don't know
the name of every USAF tanker base worldwide.

A330 and runway length. The civil A330's balanced field length is less
than that of the civil 767. Again, I'm assuming that holds true for the
tanker versions as well. Boeing (and you) say that the 767 can take off
in less space than the A330, so the discrepancy must be that at V1 an
A330 can stop in less space than a 767. This would mean that the civil
Accelerate Stop Distance Required for the A330 is less. Fair point.
But we are not talking a civil situation here. Not all of the
procedures that are required for civil operations apply to the military.
They don't worry as much about ASDR in determining the runway length
required. For example, except for that brilliant strategy of the Guard
in creating the E model, I don't believe any of the KC-135s have thrust
reversers. I don't think the KC-46 does, either (don't know about the
A330MRTT). I know I've seen heavy KC-135s rolling down the last 1/3-1/4
of the runway where there's no way they're going to be able to stop if
they don't get airborne. So for the purposes of the solicitation the
takeoff, not balanced field length, would be the driver. However, as
previously stated, runway length was not the issue. It was runway width
and strength, but more importantly existing taxiways and intersections.
That was the problem, and not just one taxiway at one base. AF might
have addressed this by saying they would make the modifications as
necessary, but for the analysis to be valid that would have to add the
cost of that to the A330 bid. When they start talking KC-10
replacement, which KC-X was not, they'll have to revise requirements,
because that would be a larger plane.

I could go into more aspects [giving extra credit for things they said
they wouldn't give extra credit for, making changes without informing
Boeing, etc.), but for brevity I've just limited my self to the points
you raised. Everything I've said is a matter of public record,
including the full (redacted because of proprietary and source
information) GAO decision. Again, GAO never said which plane was better
just that the award, based on what was asked for and how it was
announced evaluation would take place, couldn't be sustained. It's also
worthy of note that most of Boeing's claims were denied. But what was
sustained was enough to "poison" the award.

Finally, let me include another direct quote from GAO: "In its decision,
GAO recommends that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors,
obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a
new source selection decision, consistent with GAO’s decision. GAO
further recommends that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation
does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the
solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors".

Exactly.