Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid [Archive] - Page 2

Graybeard

27th Mar 2008, 11:13

As posted above, the CRS, Congressional Research Service, submitted its report on 28 Feb 08, seemingly a little late to matter.

The part most interesting to me, of course was about buying used.

"Convert Used Commercial Aircraft into Tankers. The Air Force has argued against purchasing surplus commercial aircraft and converting them into military tankers. However, Rand’s AOA appears to agree with the earlier DSB study— although with distinct caveats — that purchasing used aircraft may merit additional study. Rand’s AOA found that purchasing used aircraft as tankers is “generally not as cost effective” (as purchasing new aircraft), but “...close enough in
estimated cost to not exclude it from competition.”

"Some have suggested that surplus DC-10 aircraft, in particular, might offer attractive means of acquiring air refueling capabilities for less money up-front. Those that hold this view point out the Air Force already operates the similar KC-10 a commercial derivative that “retains 88 percent systems commonality with the DC-10. Thus, significant additional investments may not be required in operations, maintenance, and supply if surplus DC-10s were procured and converted into Air Force tankers. Likewise, some may suggest that surplus aircraft of the design selected in the KC-X competition may also be worthy of future consideration. Both of these options would seem to assuage Air Force concerns of adding additional aircraft types to the air refueling fleet."

"While it is unlikely that a large portion of the Air Force’s air refueling fleet could be recapitalized with used commercial aircraft, proponents of this alternative may believe that even a small number of used aircraft could potentially free scarce budget dollars for other DOD priorities."

It then goes on to mention just one airplane, the Northwest Airlines DC-10, having been recently sold off in favor of new A330 passenger planes - for fuel savings. Fuel is a really big deal if you're flying 16-18 hours a day, which scheduled airlines do with long haul. They don't even mention the few hours that the present KC-10A fleet flies. Nor do they mention that the ex-NWA DC-10 are early -40 variety, with Pratt&Whitney engines, unlike the KC-10 and most other DC-10 that have more fuel efficient GE engines.

Ironically, some of the ex-NWA DC10-40s are now flying troops on USAF contract with carriers such as Omni-Air. In fact, the majority of USAF cargo and troops are hauled by contract carriers flying venerable 747s and DC-10s.

If the CRS wanted real world experience for recommendations, they would have looked at the present contract carriers and could have even hired the experts, Fedex and UPS, to study the best plane for the job. Fedex and UPS buy used planes whenener suitable ones are available that meet their needs. The CRS should have also talked to the large leasing companies, who could tell them exactly which airplanes will be coming off lease, and when.

Beyond that, the USAF plans to go through long, drawn out planning and testing phases that will stretch out for five years before planned IOC. Costs always grow grossly as the programs drag on.

Meanwhile, they could have 767's, DC-10s or A300s within a year, for lots less money. The Israelis, as reported previously, are modifying a 767 right now for Colombia, a project no doubt bought by US tax dollars for the drug war.

We don't need new tankers at $200 Million each. We could use some used tankers at $50 Million or less, which will last a long time at the rates they will fly. Boeing has proposed used tankers in the past, and been rebuffed, as it's obvious the USAF wants New and Shiny.

GB

Point0Five

27th Mar 2008, 11:40

The article you quote talks about using old aircraft as tankers for "less money up front".

There's your problem right there. Where does the true cost of Through Life Support come from?

Roland Pulfrew

27th Mar 2008, 12:55

There's your problem right there. Where does the true cost of Through Life Support come from?

Point0Five

Don't raise through life costs with graybeard; he studiously ignores through life costs because he hasn't got a defence. He also ignores the fact that there aren't enough second hand aircraft available to meet this, the first tranche of tankers without buying in multiple types. Which will of course add to whloe life costs, as you have to support different fleets.

I note with all the quotes he has used from the FAS report that he has ignored all those that don't support his argument. As a simple example he advoctaed using 737s as tankers because they were cheap and plentiful, completely ignoring the fact that no-one has designed a 737 tanker.

brickhistory

27th Mar 2008, 14:53

Not to mention his totally outdated and spurious, repeated comments about the 'few hours a day' the KC-10s (and by extension, the -135s) fly.

It ain't the SAC days anymore. Both groups of tankers are being flogged unmercifully with the ops tempo since Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

Graybeard

27th Mar 2008, 15:32

Yeh, Brickhistory, throw invectives instead of stating facts.
The KC-135R fleet is averaging 700 hours per year, or two hours per day.
The KC-135E fleet is averaging 450 hours per year.
The first KC-135 will reach their airframe life limit of just 39,000 hours in 2040.

Many early 747 have reached their life limit of about 90,000 hours. There are many DC-10-30s flying with over 100,000 hours.

Pax planes in long haul scheduled service average 4,000 hours+ per year. Cargo planes get much less, due at least partially to turnaround time.

The 737? It happens to share the fuselage of the 707, 727, and 757. Are there not any 707 tankers flying?

If an airline, pax or cargo, plans to stay in business, it buys or leases new or used planes appropriate to the utilization. A $200 Million plane that is parked 20 hours a day is a huge waste of capital, and is unthinkable in the for-profit world.

GB

EGAC_Ramper

27th Mar 2008, 15:58

as it's obvious the USAF wants New and Shiny.

But if this is what the Air Force wants and NEEDS for future operations etc then why should they be denied the funding etc to have the equipment they need whether it Boeing/Airbus/Illushyin:E etc.

Regards

Brain Potter

27th Mar 2008, 17:46

Graybeard,

You are cherry-picking from that report to find statements that might lend credence to the idea that used commercial aircraft could satsify the KC-X requirement. You seem to think that USAF Generals reject used aircraft out-of-hand simply because they like the idea of owning new equipment. Let me assure you that no Generals get viscerally excited by anything as dull as tanker-transport aircraft. They are mainly fighter-pilots who will have not given tankers a second thought until they are promoted into a postiton where they are responsible for providing the service and only then do they realize how important tankers are to the delivery of airpower. It is very telling that Gen Moseley speaks of his nighttime worry being a structural failure that causes the loss of the KC-135 fleet. The USAF has taken on used airframes for expensive conversions in the past (JSTARS) and has probably learned a valuable lesson about the true cost of second-hand aircraft. Fighter Generals would not advocate spending money on brand-new tankers unless they thought it was the best value solution.

You also seem to think that tanker conversions are technically easy. Again, be assued that they are not. Boeing having been working on the KC-767 for the ITAF/JASDF for some years and it is still not in service. I can just about concede that a handful of DC-10s could be converted to KDC-10 standard to form a new squadron at Travis or McGuire within say 2 years, but definitely not 1 year. But as for the 767 or A300, with no conversion in service and neither type already in USAF service - it is just not possible on the timescale you quote. Moreover, tanker conversions and equipment are not as cheap as you imply. The conversion is not solely about the air-refuelling equipment, expensive as that is, but also the specialist avionics and other equipment required by the USAF that Omega and the Colombian Air Force don't need to fit. Try this for an analogy: You are going to buy a fleet of specialist vehicles - let's say a fire engines. They are going to be fitted with very expensive equipment to fulfil their role and are expected to last 40 years. Do you start with a half-worn out used commercial vehicle - or a new chassis?

Finally, as to your assertion that the first KC-135 will not reach end of it's life until 2040 did you not read these paragraphs?:

Additionally, during testimony, Secretary Wynne cited maintenance concerns stating,“The problem is that we have 85 active KC-135Es. We only have 40 that can fly. Of those 40, more than 13 are being stood down locally by their commanders because they don’t want to fly them. They break too often, and they suck their maintenance out.”

General Moseley explained KC-135E operational limitations when he testified,
“And we only fly the KC-135Es in the vicinity of the airfield for Operation
Noble Eagle and for the Northeast Tanker Task Force. We don’t deploy them.
We can’t take them into theater. We can’t lift the weight. We can’t operate at the temperatures with this airplane. And by the spring of [2010], all of them are now grounded because of the pylons and the structure.

LowObservable

28th Mar 2008, 13:45

One point on conversions:

You can't put a boom on a 767 stretch (300/400) because of tail clearance, and there were very few 767-200s ever built with the high gross weight structure needed for tanking.

That leaves the DC-10s, but again - is it not the case that most of the freighters in decent shape have been recycled into MD-10s and are in commercial use? The only heavyweight DC-10 cargo aircraft were the -30CFs and they are 25-35 years old. A few MD-11Fs, but then you're really into aging AND small numbers.

Graybeard

28th Mar 2008, 14:44

------
http://news.van.fedex.com/files/Plane_Flying_jpg2_1.jpg

Graybeard

28th Mar 2008, 14:48

You can cite examples all day long of failures in USAF procurement. It's legendary. The KC-10A was exemplary in coming in on time and budget.

Transcript from Lou Dobbs Tonight, 27 Mar 08: "..That outsourced Marine One project has not been efficient. The president's new helicopter fleet is behind schedule, vastly over-budget, the cost has nearly doubled in three years. And in fact, that whole project is under review..."

Who's the contractor on that?

Jackonicko

28th Mar 2008, 14:50

And is that the fault of the aircraft, the contractor, or requirement shift of epic proportions?

pr00ne

28th Mar 2008, 14:52

Graybeard,

Lockheed-Martin.

Graybeard

28th Mar 2008, 15:09

The Fedex fleet includes:

66 Airbus A300-600s
66 Airbus A310-200/300s
90 Boeing 727-200s
5 Boeing DC10-10s
13 Boeing DC10-30s
58 Boeing MD10-10s
7 Boeing MD10-30s
58 Boeing MD11s

Only a few MD-11 were delivered new to Fedex. Most of the rest were used, converted from pax. UPS flies another 40 used MD-11, leaving about 90 elsewhere to be obtained for cargo or fuel farms. The oldest of the MD-11 are less than 20, leaving them a long life in the reduced usage as tankers. They would be replacing KC-135R, that are getting less than two hours a day now, and KC-135E, which are used even less.

As for mission avionics, they have to be bought and installed anyhow, whether in a new plane or used. Tacan with inverse mode and UHF Comm were about all the KC-10 had when new, in addition to the boom control, of course. The rest of the avionics were standard airline fit, and hence, very reliable.

There is little doubt that a deal could be worked with Fedex, UPS or the leasing companies.

GB

Squirrel 41

28th Mar 2008, 19:41

Graybeard,

I appreciate that facts from lots of people on this thread - better informed, I would suggest, than either you or I - have pooh-poohed the 2nd hand MD-11 or DC-10 solution.

In spite of this, let's take your MD-11 suggestion at face value:

Number of MD-11s produced (source: Wiki, but probably accurate)

Baseline MD-11 (131), MD-11 Combi (5), MD-11 Convertible Frieghter (6), MD-11ER (5), MD-11F (53)

Total MD-11 production = 147 + 53 freighters = 200 airframes

Less: hull losses 5

Total MD-11 avaliable = 195

Ok.

So, if the USAF wanted to have second hand MD-11s as KC-X at an MTOW 630,500lbs (vs 507,063lbs for KC-45As), and all of this was extra useful payload (which it isn't) then in massively over-simplified terms, you would need 20% fewer MD-11 tankers than KC-45As. This means you would need 145 MD-11s or about 75% of the total number of MD-11s in existence.

And if the US Government put it about that it wanted to buy 75% of the MD-11s around, then they could get them ... at a cost!

And if this cunning plan works, and 145 MD-11s arrive at a XYZ AFB for conversion, what will you find?

- Variety of ages - delivered 1990 - 2001
- 3 types of engines: Pratt & Whitney PW4460, PW4462 and General Electric CF6-80C2D1F
- Combination of structures - some cleared to 630,500lbs MTOW, others design limited to 602,000lb
- Different door designs - pax a/c don't have frieght doors and floors
- Combination of cockpits and systems

And you want to standardise this lot and then convert them to tankers because this is going to... wait for it..... Save money???

And that's before you make them a sustainable fleet for the next 50 years.

S41

brickhistory

28th Mar 2008, 19:48

Yeh, Brickhistory, throw invectives instead of stating facts.
The KC-135R fleet is averaging 700 hours per year, or two hours per day.
The KC-135E fleet is averaging 450 hours per year.
The first KC-135 will reach their airframe life limit of just 39,000 hours in 2040.

GB, you have me at a distinct disadvantage as you feel free to throw numbers about (without sourcing them, I might add) whereas I won't talk about operational numbers.

Suffice it to say, I'll take my view over yours, but to each his own

By the way, if my previous post was 'throwing invectives' in your view, such was not my intent.

I am simply dismissing your opinion. Important distinction there.......

Brain Potter

29th Mar 2008, 11:52

I'm bored of this now.

Well done to Northrop Grumman and EADS for winning the competition.

But even more credit should go those people in the DoD and USAF for having the guts to select what was clearly the most capable aircraft. Let's hope that self-interest, politics and jingoism doesn't hinder the speedy provision of this aircraft to the US servicemen and women.

Good luck to Boeing with development of the KC-777 or KC-787 for the next phase of the re-capitalization. This would be a far more laudible use of their energy than continuing to bleat about the outcome of KC-X and, happily, would see engineers employed instead of lawyers.

Graybeard

29th Mar 2008, 12:56

Really sorry, Brickhistory. I knew invective was the wrong word to use, but CRS (Can't Remember S...) prevented me from an appropriate one.

I hadn't cited the source of the KC-135 flight hours, but it had been in earlier posts. Should have cited ibid, I guess. Regardless:

"As of 2006, the KC-135E fleet is flying an annual average of 350 hours per aircraft and the KC-135R fleet is flying an annual average of 710 hours per aircraft. The KC-135 fleet is currently flying double its planned yearly flying hour program to meet airborne refueling requirements, and has resulted in higher than forecasted usage and sustainment costs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135_Stratotanker

--------
"... The Air Force's nearly 50-year-old KC-135 Stratotanker must be replaced with a newer, more capable aircraft as soon as possible."

""This is a matter of national security and we can't lose sight of that as a nation. It's critically urgent that we get on with bringing a new tanker into our fleet; our global range and global reach rely on the tanker," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, the commander of Air Mobility Command. "Tankers give us the ability to go anywhere on the face of the planet and strike our enemies, or deliver cargo or humanitarian aid.""

"The tanker procurement, if it goes as planned, is still a 30-year process, which means Airmen could still be flying the KC-135 into the year 2040, the general said. Considering most airlines retired the commercial version of the KC-135 -- the Boeing 707 -- years ago, "It's unconscionable for us to ask our Airmen to fly in, and attempt to maintain, aircraft that are 80 years old," he said."

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123091147

I agree. Used planes, whether 767, DC-10, MD-11 or A310, could be in service much quicker, and at much higher rates of implementation than possible with new planes. There are more than 200 A310 in service, and several A310 MRTT, so it would be a good choice.

There is no overriding reason to demand a single type for replacement. Additional training and other costs are overshadowed by the savings in used airframes.

Spending serious money on airplanes with a return projected over a span of 30-50 years is folly. Even ten years planning includes myriad unknowns.

GB

Roland Pulfrew

29th Mar 2008, 21:42

Used planes, whether 767, DC-10, MD-11 or A310, could be in service much quicker

And your source for this is what? Apart your own surreal imagination?

Let's face it greybeard you are out of your depth on this one. By your own admission you know nothing about AT and AAR operations. You have no/little knowledge of current operations in the USAF KC10 and 135 fleets and yet you persist in this stupidity, now claiming that a mixed fleet of 767s/DC10s/A310s would be cheaper. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

You Sir are a troll, a good one, but a troll all the same. I salute you for keeping this topic going much longer than it should. At least we all know that the USAF are getting the right aircraft for their needs.

fdcg27

29th Mar 2008, 23:53

Graybeard,

I agree with you in principle, but in practice, I'm not sure where the used frames would come from.
MD-11s are highly sought after as freighters, for example, and I don't know of any just sitting around. DC-10s are usually reborn as either freighters, or as contract/charter pax carriers. Again, there aren't many decent frames sitting in the desert. 767s are used to death, rather than being retired with low hours and cycles. Few A300s or A330s in decent condition are available.
There is a current shortage of transport aircraft, particularly widebodies. Consequently, I can't see how one would acquire a fleet of tankers based upon used commercial transports at an economically feasable cost. Most airlines are running their frames until they have reached either a cycle or an hour limit. It is likely, in the current environment, that the NPV of buying new is less than the NPV of buying used and converting.
There have been times in the past when large numbers of a type have been retired with low hours and cycles, but not now.

BEagle

30th Mar 2008, 09:01

Graybeard, do please let me know where you think anyone could find suitable numbers of A310-300s to convert into MRTTs! You are raidly proving to be about as economical with the true facts as dear old 'Comical Ali' (Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf) was in the last days of Saddam's regime.

Roland, for some obscure reason Boeing actually told the world that their 7-late-7 has the 'wrong configuration' to be a tanker. In any case, it has yet to fly and they're probably too busy rebuilding the centre wing box to prevent it from failing to even contemplate having another look at its AAR potential....

Jig Peter

30th Mar 2008, 14:22

Graybeard ... :cool:
Nice to see that someone from South California is still strongly supporting the former Douglas Aircraft Company's products, but I fear your sentiments overcome the facts ... But thanks for keeping the thread running with your comments, however off-target ...
The Royal Air Force has a lot of experience with second-hand aeroplanes and can't wait to get the KC-330, ordering which has taken BritGov over four years ...
Sincerely,
Jig Peter
(another sentimentalist for "real aeroplanes", but who also likes real, useable ones)

LowObservable

31st Mar 2008, 16:19

Beagle... Re 787, I'll bet that it's tail clearance for the boom.

Generally, reiteration time - tanker conversions from civilian aircraft have involved high-gross-weight, high-landing-weight cargo or convertible aircraft (with appropriate standards of structure, wheels/tyres/brakes, thrust).

A tanker with NO cargo capacity really does not make a lot of sense, and while some civvy pax jets have been converted to cargo for FedEx & UPS, it's for parcel freight which is low density, so a small weight payload does not matter. Moreover, when you convert to a tanker you add to the empty weight which further eats into payload.

Graybeard

31st Mar 2008, 16:21

"When the facts go against you, stress the law; when the law is against you, emphasize the facts; when your case has both the law and the facts against it, call the other lawyer an a$$hole."

The facts are against you who have called me names.

The majority of airliners are leased, and leases are expiring every day. In addition are the bankruptcies, such as the MaxJet 767s that were parked in December.

The USAF could not handle a hundred tankers all at once, anyhow. The only requirement is that there be a potential fleet of suitable size, and semi-astute USAF buyers.

Ironically, the US longhaul carriers who run their planes until they go to the boneyard are the ones hauling USAF cargo and troops, and most all of those were bought well used.

The USAF always has money to buy new and shiny, but not enough for less expensive or less glamorous upgrades. When President Reagan was shot in 1981, VP Bush was reportedly riding in another of the Presidential fleet, a C-9A (mil. DC9-30). The only way they had to communicate with him was through the pilots. It took two more years before they upgraded the Comm systems on the C-9A fleet at Andrews AFB.

The T-43A is a fleet of 30-40 737-200 that were bought for pilot training in the 1970s. The USAF went cheap, and equipped them with only a single analog tuned ADF, which has no integrity monitoring, of course. As happens, the T-43A were pressed into executive service, and one of them crashed in 1993 on an ADF approach that involved two NDB, killing the US Secretary of Commerce and the rest on board.

Again, it's folly to buy on a 30-50 year payback plan. Ten years is a stretch. Every exta dollar spent by the US govt today is borrowed - mostly from Communist China. In the last several years we have gone from the largest financial power to the largest debtor nation in history. The only way we will recover is by restricting imports, which seems impossible, given the 10,000+ lobbyists in Washington.

GB

knowitall

31st Mar 2008, 20:30

"The majority of airliners are leased, and leases are expiring every day."

yes but they don't have a fortune spent on them converting them to the role

"The facts are against you who have called me names."

no they are not, ever wondered why your in a minority of one in this thread?

Do you honestly think any USAF general would spend a single red cent on the "truckie" fleet that he didn't have to, have you seen the cost of an A330 thats almost 2/3rds of an F22!

ORAC

3rd Apr 2008, 06:59

GAO Declines To Throw Out Boeing Tanker Protest

The Government Accountability Office has denied requests from Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Air Force to throw out Boeing's protest of a massive tanker contract award that went to Northrop and European partner EADS, according to Air Force and Northrop Grumman press releases issued late in the day April 2. GAO called the Air Force request to dismiss some parts of the protest "untimely," according to the release. "As a result, the Air Force better understands the protest issues."

Boeing is still fighting hard to have the decision overturned, filing a second supplemental to its original protest earlier this week.

In a statement, Northrop said that while GAO had not supported its effort to end the protest of the tanker deal, the company saw Boeing's supplemental filing as a net positive. "Boeing's decision to abandon the public relations rhetoric contained in its original protest filings is in keeping with our motion," said Randy Belote, Northrop Grumman vice president of corporate and international communications, in the statement. "We are encouraged that the company has streamlined its approach. We remain convinced that the Air Force process that led to Northrop Grumman's selection was fair, open and transparent, and we look forward to assisting the Air Force defend its selection decision before the GAO."

On the Boeing side of the fence, however, there was no sense of "streamlining," only a categorical denial that the protest had been narrowed in any way with information added earlier in the week. "We're not reducing anything," said tanker spokesman Bill Barksdale. "We're not eliminating anything."

Boeing has not yet spoken publicly about its most recent protest documents, but a statement is expected April 3.

GAO had not issued a statement on the Boeing supplemental or publicly announced denying the requests from Northrop and the Air Force as of Wednesday evening.

The Air Force announced Feb. 29 that it had picked Northrop Grumman and EADS to build up to 179 of the next-generation tankers. It was a stunning upset for Boeing, until now the sole supplier of air refueling planes to the U.S. military. Backlash was immediate from Congress and organized labor, who say the deal will cost U.S. jobs at a crucial time for the U.S. economy and that the requirements were changed in a way that favored the larger Airbus aircraft built by EADS.

Boeing filed a protest with the GAO March 11. By law, the GAO has 100 days to determine if Boeing's complaints have merit.

ORAC

10th Apr 2008, 07:20

Reuters: Air Force says Boeing protest too late (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0131954920080402)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Five issues raised by Boeing Co in a protest against a $35 billion aircraft deal should be thrown out because they were improper or should have been raised before final bids were submitted, the U.S. Air Force said in documents obtained by Reuters on Tuesday.

The Air Force awarded the contract for 179 aerial refueling aircraft to Northrop Grumman Corp and Airbus parent EADS on February 29. Boeing filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office on March 11. Boeing said the Air Force changed its requirements and the way it evaluated the competing bids in a way that favored the larger Northrop-Airbus aircraft. The Air Force decision also triggered howls of protests from Boeing supporters in Congress concerned the deal could shift business and jobs to Europe's Airbus, Boeing's chief rival for building commercial airplanes.

The Air Force and Northrop filed separate motions to dismiss parts of the Boeing protest on March 26, but the Air Force did not publicly release the details of its motion. A copy of the Air Force motion, which had some portions redacted, cited multiple grounds for the partial dismissal of the Boeing protest. It said the cost risk assigned to Boeing's proposal was its "own fault" and not due to any foreign government subsidies received by the Northrop team.

Boeing has argued that it was penalized for offering a smaller aircraft when the Air Force really wanted a large airplane. But the Air Force said that claim was "legally baseless" and fell outside GAO's scope to evaluate.

"The Air Force has provided sufficient information to demonstrate the protest ground ... submitted by the Boeing Company are without legal and factual basis and untimely under GAO regulations," Air Force lawyers wrote in a letter that accompanied the motion. "Therefore, the protest ground identified above should be summarily dismissed to facilitate efficient resolution of the remaining protest issues," the Air Force said. The Air Force asked the GAO to rule on its motion before the service must respond in full to the protest on April 16.

Air Force acquisition chief Sue Payton also defended the contract award before a House Armed Services subcommittee on Tuesday, telling lawmakers, "At no time were any datasets changed to try to skew or unlevel the playing field." She also rejected Boeing's claim that it did not know it could earn extra credit for beating the minimum requirements, and said the bidders were briefed at least three times about which of the 808 requirements they were getting credit for. "It was very clear that we had no requirement for size, large or medium. We did have requirements to meet capabilities and there would be extra credit given for exceeding that minimum threshold," she said.

The Air Force filing made the following points:

* The GAO should dismiss Boeing's contention that the Air Force changed requirements to favor the larger aircraft offered by its only competitor. "Boeing's protest about the size of the tanker selected is untimely because it seeks to change the Air Force's requirements or challenges the express terms of the solicitation that Boeing should have protested prior to the due date for the receipt of proposals," the Air Force said.

* Boeing's claim that the Air Force was unreasonable in how it evaluated aerial refueling was based on an "interpretation problem where Boeing is to blame," the Air Force said, noting that Boeing should have raised what it considered ambiguous language before it submitted its bid.

* Boeing's challenge about airlift capacity misstated the evaluation terms, the Air Force said. Boeing argued that the Air Force should have counted "points" but the Air Force said it had to qualitatively assess the competing strengths of each proposal since this was a "best value" competition.

* Boeing's challenge about a complex Air Force computer model used to assess the bids was also untimely, according to the document. The Air Force said it did not change model provisions after proposals were due, and Boeing knew in advance what "insights or observations" about its bid would be used to make the contract decision.

* Finally, the issue of foreign government subsidies received by the Northrop team also should have been raised before bids were submitted, the Air Force said.

The document said Air Force officials clearly noted that Boeing had a higher cost/price risk when compared with Northrop. "Boeing's higher cost/price risk was due to Boeing's own fault and not due to any subsidies alleged enjoyed by (Northrop Grumman)," the Air Force said.

airsound

11th Apr 2008, 17:10

Latest news release from Boeing
Boeing KC-767 Tanker Determined More Survivable in U.S. Air Force Evaluation
ST. LOUIS, April 11, 2008 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today said the U.S. Air Force's decision to award a contract for the next aerial refueling airplane to the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) is at odds with the fact that the Northrop/EADS team's KC-30 is less survivable and more vulnerable to attack than the Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker.

The Air Force evaluation cited the Boeing offering to be more advantageous in the critical area of survivability. The evaluators found the KC-767 tanker had almost five times as many survivability discriminators as its competitor.

Speaking this week at the Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group (ARSAG) Conference in Orlando, Fla., former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff and retired Gen. Ronald Fogleman stressed that survivability greatly enhances the operational utility of a tanker.
"When I saw the Air Force's assessment of both candidate aircraft in the survivability area, I was struck by the fact that they clearly saw the KC-767 as a more survivable tanker," Fogleman told the ARSAG audience in his role as a consultant to Boeing's tanker effort. "To be survivable, tanker aircraft must contain systems to identify and defeat threats, provide improved situational awareness to the aircrew to avoid threat areas, and protect the crew in the event of attack. The KC-767 has a superior survivability rating and will have greater operational utility to the joint commander and provide better protection to aircrews that must face real-world threats."

On Feb. 29, the Air Force selected Northrop/EADS' Airbus A330 derivative over Boeing's 767 derivative. Boeing subsequently asked the Government Accountability Office to review the decision, citing numerous irregularities and a flawed process that included deviations from the evaluation and award criteria established by the service for the competition.

During the Air Force debrief, the Boeing team discovered the KC-767 outranked the KC-30 in the critical survivability category. The KC-767 achieved a total score of 24 positive discriminators -- including 11 described as major -- while the KC-30 scored five, none of which were major.
Major survivability discriminators for the Boeing KC-767 included:
More robust surface-to-air missile defense systems
Cockpit displays that improve situational awareness to enable flight crews to better see and assess the threat environment
Better Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening -- the KC-767 is better able to operate in an EMP environment compared with the KC-30
Automatic route planning/rerouting and steering cues to the flight crew to avoid threats once they are detected
Better armor-protection features for the flight crew and critical aircraft systems
Better fuel-tank-explosion protection features.

Boeing's KC-767 Advanced Tanker will be equipped with the latest and most reliable integrated defensive equipment to protect the aircraft and crew by avoiding, defeating or surviving threats, resulting in unprecedented tanker survivability -- far superior to all current Air Force tankers as well as the Northrop/EADS KC-30. The Boeing KC-767 also includes a comprehensive set of capabilities that enables unrestricted operations while providing maximum protection for the tanker crew.

Impressive to note that they quote the distinguished ex-USAF Chief of Staff Gen Fogleman - although perhaps his impartiality might be called into question by the fact that he is also described as
consultant to Boeing's tanker effort

airsound

brickhistory

11th Apr 2008, 18:21

Why question Fogleman? He wasn't in the judging and his comments on that one issue to that specific group seem to be accurate so why question his integrity? Being paid by Boeing doesn't change any of that, does it?

In the interest of full disclosure, Fogleman was the only USAF Chief of Staff that I had any respect for. He immediately undid some of the stupidity of his predecessor (he whose name must not be mentioned by any of the USAF, ptooey....) regarding changing the uniform back to something approaching (but not quite there) military attire vice a ready to wear Delta Airlines or RAF-lite wannabe. A minor thing in the scheme of things, but immensely hated at the time, he corrected that.

On a larger level, he is one of a few senior officers to resign when his views conflicted with the views of his political masters. He didn't hang on, he didn't leave with great fanfare, just a short farewell in which he, paraphrasing, stated that if his views couldn't be matched with his boss, it was time to go. So he went.

The topic was where the blame for the Khobar Towers bombing lay and who was hung out to dry.

airsound

11th Apr 2008, 18:28

Why question Fogleman?

I don't question his integrity at all, Brick. Indeed, I have had a little to do with him, and I too found him impressive. I merely point out that anything he might say on this subject does not come from a position of impartiality.

airsound

brickhistory

11th Apr 2008, 18:52

Agreed.

My reading of the piece seemed to put his quote and therefore him into the larger official selection process and somehow not above board.

D-IFF_ident

11th Apr 2008, 23:38

From Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/sphereNews/idUSN0840842320080408?sp=true&view=sphere

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, April 8 (Reuters) - A retired Air Force general resigned on Tuesday as chairman of the nonprofit Airlift/Tanker Association over a perceived conflict of interest due to his work as a consultant for Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research), two sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.

Boeing is protesting the February award of a $35 billion Air Force program for 179 new aerial refueling aircraft to Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and its European subcontractor EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research).

Retired Air Force Gen. Ron Fogleman's resignation came after he gave a speech earlier on Tuesday in Orlando, Florida, praising the superiority of the Boeing 767 aerial tanker. The speech was at a lunch sponsored by Boeing at the annual convention of a separate group, the Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group.

"He resigned because there was a perceived conflict of interest and he wanted to keep the organization out of it," said one of the sources, who asked not to be named.

An assistant to Fogleman said he was traveling and could not be reached for immediate comment.

Boeing, Northrop and EADS are all members of the Airlift/Tanker Association, which includes civilians and military personnel.

The association's Web site describes the group as "providing a forum for ensuring American military forces continue to have the air mobility capability required to implement U.S. national security strategy."

Fogleman has been a consultant to Boeing for years. His name appeared on various documents that emerged during an earlier $23.5 billion Air Force plan to lease 100 Boeing 767 tankers, which was scrapped amid a major procurement scandal.

Boeing officials had no immediate comment.

Mark Smith, president of the Airlift/Tanker Association, confirmed in a statement that Fogleman had resigned, effective immediately, after four years as the group's chairman.

"Gen. Fogleman made his decision to resign as chairman to have greater freedom of action regarding current issues in the national defense commercial arena," Smith said .

The Airlift/Tanker Association's latest quarterly magazine featured an article about the Air Force project to replace its aging fleet of aerial tankers.

Fogleman retired from the Air Force in 1997 after 34 years with the service. His last job with the Air Force was as chief of staff.

Smith said retired Air Force Gen. Walt Kross had been appointed acting chairman of the Airlift/Tanker Association until formal elections at the group's convention in November. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

airsound

12th Apr 2008, 20:51

Thanks for that D-IFF.

It couldn’t be, could it, that the esteemed General reads PPRuNe? Nah, too much....

Whatever, I look forward to his revisiting the UK soon and having a chat with some of his erstwhile UK peers about how the honourable course for an officer who perceives a serious conflict of interest is resignation.

airsound

henry crun

12th Apr 2008, 21:26

Brick, I am wondering how much importance can be placed on the points the general has raised.

Do you have any idea of how many tankers in the USAF have been attacked ?

brickhistory

12th Apr 2008, 21:32

henry, no, I don't.

Again, regarding Fogleman's comments, it seems he was accurate in the ratings given on survivability. As he is a Boeing advocate, I would be surprised if he spoke about areas where his choice lost.

Please note, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with his choice or the winning choice of tanker. I am not qualified to judge.

I was/am/will be surprised if EADS-produced hardware actually makes it to various tanker bases in the next 10 years, but hope I'm wrong and the USAF gets something better than the venerable, but decidely long in the tooth, KC-135s.

MarkD

15th Apr 2008, 02:22

While it might be unusual for a tanker to encounter a SAM, it might be somewhat more usual for a transport, so unless the KC-45 tanker-transport is restricted to doing runs to places like Turkey and the Gulf States with C-130/C-17 taking the cargo the last few yards it's not an insignificant issue.

BEagle

15th Apr 2008, 06:01

Reading an article in Flight International about the latest delays to Boeing's 7-late-7, I came across the following interesting statement:

One industry source told Flight International that these fears have already resulted in widebody values being "artificially high". As Boeing looks at ways of bridging the capacity shortfall, sources say that one option being examined is to redirect the 767 production planned for its now defunct KC-X tanker bid towards the passenger market.

So at least some folk at Boeing seem to have accepted that their KC-767A is a dead duck for the USAF. Mind you, trying to persuade people waiting for the 7-late-7 that they should buy the 767-300ER instead seems somewhat optimistic to me....

NP20

23rd May 2008, 05:06

It would seem that, predictably, this fight is not yet over -

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2235721020080523

I once read that in the US the way to ensure that a piece of military equipment enter service is for parts to be made in all 50 states...

Roland Pulfrew

23rd May 2008, 08:28

[OFF TOPIC]

including the addition of more than $9 billion in funding for weapons not requested by the Pentagon.

God how I wish that our government were that generous!!! £4.5B might, just about, meet the "bow wave" in the EP.:\

[/OFF TOPIC]

brickhistory

18th Jun 2008, 18:37

From a GAO report released today:

"We recommended 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 our decision. We further recommended that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors. We also recommended that if Boeing’s proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman. We also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. By statute, the Air Force is given 60 days to inform our Office of the Air Force’s actions in response to our recommendations."

-sent to me without the link to the full report----

BEagle

18th Jun 2008, 19:32

Meanwhile, whilst Boeing still cannot their $hit in the right sock for a handful of Italian AF 767 tankers (which are far from the KC-767 spec), the A310MRTT and CC150T go from strength to strength. A310MRTT has more than met its design spec targets - those living on the west coast of the US can watch an A310 trailing fast jets from Eilsen to Holloman in the next few days, for example....

The RAAF's KC-30B program also goes well - and yet another prospective A330 tanker customer has recently been on a fact-finding mission.

Boeing, your Frankentanker is totally outclassed in every respect. Time to stop moaning, dry your eyes and concentrate your efforts on trying to get your 7-late-7 fit for flight, I would suggest!

Flight Safety

18th Jun 2008, 19:57

I still don't understand the "capability" argument in favor of the EADS aircraft. Everyone knows 747s and A380s are more capable than 737s or A320s, so why does anyone bother to buy a 737 or an A320?

Boeing has won the first round.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25246267

AVNBROKER

18th Jun 2008, 21:28

Its official......

http://www.gao.gov/press/press-boeing2008jun18_3.pdf

MarkD

19th Jun 2008, 00:51

Pretty bad news for McCain who would have been counting on jobs as a good news in southern states...

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2008/06/16/daily61.html On April 17, Philip Teel, corporate vice president and president of Northrop Grumman's Mission Systems Sector, spoke at the Atlanta Press Club, saying Northrop Grumman would convert planes made by Airbus into KC-45 tankers in Mobile, Ala., but much of the work would be done in Georgia.

"That program will be the cornerstone for a very, very significant aerospace corridor in the Southeast," Teel said. "It's the linchpin for that aerospace corridor."

Teel said that corridor would have include Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi.

Also - SDD-2 has flown and awaits conversion (http://www.eadstankerupdate.com/2008/issue_43.htm). What happens to it and SDD-1 if Boeing gets the contract after all?

Point0Five

19th Jun 2008, 03:52

Sad day for the USAF, they're the real losers out of this. But it would appear that a stronger Boeing is more important than a stronger America.

Flyingblind

19th Jun 2008, 04:39

If McCain wins in November would he be able to apply pressure 'in the national interest' to reverse or ignore this recommendation? only asking as the program will now be delayed for a few more years while fresh proposals are organised.

And whats Obama's point of view on this.

My focus on the political element on this matter is understandable due the up coming elections and the follow on effects of any decision.

With this and the CASR-X decision 'i pity da foo' that has to submit to tender any future large US DoD Projects.

D-IFF_ident

19th Jun 2008, 07:38

The tragedy will be the loss of lives of real warfighters while politicians continue to argue for the sake of their own overstuffed pockets.

The process could now continue in one big closed loop. If NG win again then Boeing already know that they can protest and force another round, and if Boeing win next time then NG will surely protest and rely on the precedent already set by Boeing to force another round, and so it goes on. Meanwhile, Paddy McEvaddy will be onto a real winner over the next 10 years; fair play to him.

BOEING777X

19th Jun 2008, 09:01

The biggest loser is the US Air Force (http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/06/19/eads-in-tatters-as-gao-sides-with-boeing/).

If a new RFP is issued, another contest will ensue, meaning a possible second protest being lodged by the losing party, thus delaying manufacture and delivery of the tankers it so deperately seeks.

knowitall

19th Jun 2008, 09:15

If this process keeps being pushed to the right will their become a point at which it becomes uneconomic for boeing to keep the 767 line open for it?

MarkD

19th Jun 2008, 14:02

Obama is likely pro Boeing as Boeing states are mostly Blue States. (although given the way McCain's numbers are going they may all be Blue States soon)

I doubt it's a good idea for McCain or Obama to try and bully through a vendor for paperclips never mind tankers as the Armed Services Committee and others would have a collective $hitfit.

Jig Peter

19th Jun 2008, 16:17

Stepehen Trimble on www.flightglobal.com (http://www.flightglobal.com) has a good description of "Round One" (without NG/EADS) and the convolutions involved ... no wonder this round got stuck with an "Offside" call by the referee ... Makes me wonder if Boeing's been taking lessons from Greek mythology and the Minotaur .
Too right, it's USAF wot loses in all this - roll on the demos of A330 capability as the "Footsa" (City of London-like) comes on line, long before DC gets around to a "final" decision.
AirTanker could find itself with a whole lot of custom apart from any British needs ...
Meanwhile, stay tuned for Round 2 (or 3?).

fltlt

20th Jun 2008, 00:40

Let's put all this in perspective:

Boeing gets caught with hand in till, oop's.

Possible presidential candidate looking for points.

FAR's, and common sense demand two participants for a "full and open competition" to take place.

Who else is out there: Antonov, Tupolev?

NG is approached, encouraged to bid. Only way to fullfull point #3, or reward Boing for bad behaviour, felony(s) and award, but it's election year.

Nobody honestly expected NG to win, period. The French, OOH la la!

But now we have Sarkovsky making I love the US noises.

Boing listen to one set of ex little generals, NG to another.

Guess which set of little ex generals had the most pull?

Don't despair, riding to the rescue of Boing is Made In The USA, yeah, right.

So now we have ignorant little congressmen running around in, guess what, election year, puffing up their chests as the lobbyists blow smoke up their a-sses.

Meanwhile, the fleet ages.

News flash: 6 weeks from now 50 congressmen and women cram onto a stage made for 10. One by one they flap their lips and smile at the cameras.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, we have reviewed this matter, and in the interests of our fighting men and women, American Jobs and solidarity with Europe we hereby announce that NG and Boing have formed a joint venture to produce the next generation of tankers"

The name Boing used above is in satire.

And so, another never ending, ever escalating program is born. Because we have become a nation of whiners!

Brought to you by the folks at the funny shaped building, with love.

D-IFF_ident

20th Jun 2008, 17:56

I've never understood the anti-French thing with the Americans. The Brits have a long history of warring with France, but America's only real involvement with them was during their own War of Independence, when the French were on their side,. In fact, I understand that France's involvement was a fairly decisive part of England losing. 200 years later, France refuses to join forces with the USA and suddenly they are all 'Cheese eating surrender monkeys'? Truth be told, it's only us Brits who really have a right to call them that.

Bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys! :}

brickhistory

20th Jun 2008, 20:36

There was the little matter of France 'pulling chocks' early in WWII.

And De Gaulle saying 'p1ss off' in the 1960s.

But other than that......

--------------------------------------------------------------

McCain doesn't like the USAF and/or Boeing due to some stupidity and corruption in the last few years. He'd be fine with the Airbus, er, NG/Eads win.

Obama, from Illinios, where Boeing is headquartered and wanting the union vote, will support a Boeing win.

Meanwhile, the KC-135 soldiers on and on and on.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------

And to give the French credit, it was their money and their fleet outside Yorktown (situation greatly simplified for brevity's sake) that made the American Revolution a win for our side.

Seems our win had a big influence on them 'outing' Louis a few years later. Sorry about that....:ok:

US Herk

21st Jun 2008, 03:02

Hit a tanker (KC-135R) Mon night...I believe the tail number was 57-something...

Lee Norberg

21st Jun 2008, 13:29

Meanwhile, the KC-135 soldiers on and on and on...

Well Folks,

I'll say it right up front- my employer is Northrop Grumman in Bethpage, NY (and for those who remember- Grumman Aerospace) and the Division here heads up the E-2C/D, EA-6B and now EA-18G.

Forget about my partisan feeling for the KC-45A, it's the men and women of the USAF who are flying these 50+ year old KC-135's admirably in their
tanking capacity that really counts.

They and the USAF Air Mobility Command are being hurt by this politicking and job issues so that invariably a delay of one to two years has now injected to the schedule. What a shame this has been!

Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY
:(

fleigle

27th Jun 2008, 19:12

Interesting article in todays Flightglobal, seems like Boeing did have good grounds to challenge the Air Farce decision.
Having been the recipient of a questionable Gov't agency decision in the past I can fully appreciate their feelings.

OFBSLF

9th Jul 2008, 18:51

Sec. Gates announced today that the tanker contract will be reopened:

The Air Force will reopen the bidding for a multibillion-dollar contract for midair refueling tankers, the defense secretary, Robert Gates, announced on Wednesday.

The decision comes in the wake of a report by the Government Accountability Office that found flaws in the process that initially awarded the contract to a partnership of Northrop Grumman and the European parent of Airbus over a competing bid by Boeing, which filed a protest.

Full text here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/business/10tanker.html?ref=business

Flight Safety

9th Jul 2008, 22:48

Now if the Air Force (or Pentagon) would kindly specify in the RFP the size and capability of the tanker they want, both contractors can submit their best proposals. :ok:

ZH875

10th Jul 2008, 07:17

So when Boeing get awarded the contract, will EADS be allowed to object?.....

.....No, thought not.

Still, you have to admire the yanks, buy American, keep American jobs.:ok:

kluge

10th Jul 2008, 08:45

Are you implying that the US is a protectionist market ?
Surely not.....that would be hypocrisy wouldn't it ?

:yuk:
:yuk:
:yuk:

brickhistory

10th Jul 2008, 14:57

Are you implying that the US is a protectionist market ?

1. The ruling was made on the merits of the following of the rules of the RFP. Whether EADS/NG or Boeing is the better product is not within my area of expertise. Following the rules, however, is pretty clear cut.

The USAF pooching this twice now is a separate matter.

2. And you'd be any different if you had a British manufacturer still capable of building such?

Jig Peter

10th Jul 2008, 15:29

In order to counter the "might" of the US aircraft builders (there used to be three!!!), Europe's builders got together to form Airbus, with the success we know (and don't get started on your "subsidies" thing or we'll be back into the crafty way Boeing, with the KC-135/707 got into the civil market where it was a nonentity before ...).
With such aircraft as Typhoon, Tornado, Rafale, Gripen, to mention but the fighting machines, and Airbus in the civil market, Europe has the skills to design and build first-class products. Just get used to it, America !!!
Apparently the GAO upheld only 8 out of over 100 pernicketing points raised by the legal eagles from Chicago ... but will the new team be able to sort the thing out before the end of the year ???:ugh:

glad rag

10th Jul 2008, 15:36

So that new factory and 45,000 jobs were not going to be in the usa then?

OFBSLF

10th Jul 2008, 15:42

So when Boeing get awarded the contract, will EADS be allowed to object? No, thought not.

Yes they will. That is part of the law. Their objection will then be evaluated, just as Boeing's was.

The GAO actually is very non-partisan. The Air Farce really screwed up he procurement process (again). For example: The GAO report went on to say:

"In short, the Air Force misled Boeing when the agency advised the firm that it met this objective but later determined that Boeing did not fully meet this objective and did not reopen discussions with Boeing on this issue. The Air Force also treated the firm unequally when it provided Northrop Grumman but not Boeing with continued discussions on this same objective. It is axiomatic that procuring agencies may not conduct discussions in a manner that favors one offer over another."

brickhistory

10th Jul 2008, 15:49

With such aircraft as Typhoon, Tornado, Rafale, Gripen, to mention but the fighting machines, and Airbus in the civil market, Europe has the skills to design and build first-class products.

Absolutely some marvelous airplanes listed.

Just get used to it, America !!!

No worries.

But to 'borrow' from another famous one-liner, "It takes a continent..."

PaperTiger

10th Jul 2008, 16:32

The real question is, was anyone surprised by this decision ? :ugh:

Jig Peter

10th Jul 2008, 16:49

:8
One of the many aggravating things about this mess is that Boeing brought it all on themselves right at the start when there was NO competitor, so why on earth did upper levels at the company feel they had to use the "ggod offices" of the lady who later caught the blast ? She's probably a lot worse off than the execs who got shoved out, by the way.
Round 2 showed that now there is a worthwhile competitor - gone are the days when Boeing could feel "entitled". The subsequent screams about job-losses hardly stand up, but the pols that are amking them aren't to know, being fed by their paymaster. The patriotism thing is just cringe-making ... Is it "patriotic" to make your Air FOrce fly second-choice aircraft ?
Let's hope Round 3 proves that the playing field really is "spirit-level level"
(Some hopes).

OFBSLF

10th Jul 2008, 17:21

She's probably a lot worse off than the execs who got shoved out, by the way.The Boeing CFO wound up in jail as well:

Ex-Boeing executive jailed for 4 months (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/212832_boeing19.html)

MarkD

10th Jul 2008, 17:57

well, let's face it - if Boeing had won again it would have been seen a homer decision, rewarding miscreants etc. So AF is "over-fair" to EADS but in doing so strays into assymetric information territory - deliberately or accidentally.

Now we have "best of three" where EADS can market their aircraft as being competitive with Boeing's whereas Boeing clean up the market that is their right since they managed to buy the only other US aircraft manufacturer that could have produced a wide-bodied jet aircraft.

The South won't get to build A330Fs but they will get to build Priuses, which is almost as good right?

brickhistory

10th Jul 2008, 18:10

"Rock, paper, scissors" anyone?

NutLoose

10th Jul 2008, 18:34

Quote:
With such aircraft as Typhoon, Tornado, Rafale, Gripen, to mention but the fighting machines, and Airbus in the civil market, Europe has the skills to design and build first-class products.
Absolutely some marvelous airplanes listed.

Quote:
Just get used to it, America !!!
No worries.

But to 'borrow' from another famous one-liner, "It takes a continent..."

:) Swings and roundabouts really, oh and it's not the whole continent, just part of it :ok:......... Though remember, nothing this day and age is a one country product.....Boeing utilise the like of Engines, undercarriages and major assemblies etc from the world over......:p

Give it 25 years and it will all have "Made in China" stamped on it regardless of it being made by Boeing or Airbus or anyone else for that matter......:mad:

Though I did think regardless of internal politics, the best plane should be produced for the job it is required to carry out and the Military had their say in the previous decision that the AIrbus was indeed that plane.......

The only losers I can see are the individual States and people in them that where / are hoping for the factory to be built and the jobs it creates in some of the poorer parts of the USA...... would be nice if Boeing did eventually win the contract in the next round that they also bring some of the wealth and prosperity this contract and jobs it would have created, to the people effected by the U turn.....:\

Oh and with the risk of upsetting some people in here, I wouldn't class the Tornado as a "Marvelous Airplane"........... "Jack of all, Master of none" more like.

US Herk

11th Jul 2008, 01:43

The only losers I can see are the individual States and people in them that where / are hoping for the factory to be built and the jobs it creates in some of the poorer parts of the USA
No, the real losers are the USAF, the folks on the line flying the 60 year old KC-135s, maintaining them, modifying them, etc.

I have reached the point I don't really care who wins just so long as we get a plane soon...we'll make it work.

...same with CSAR-X.

Lee Norberg

11th Jul 2008, 16:52

US Herk wrote:

No, the real losers are the USAF, the folks on the line flying the 60 year old KC-135s, maintaining them, modifying them, etc.

Hello Ladies/Gents,

Right up front I'll indicate that my employer is Northrop Grumman in Bethpage, NY, this division here is heading up E-2C, the new E-2D, EA-6B
and partners with Boeing- St. Louis on the EA-18G. Is their some "favoritism" on my behalf, of course!

The simple fact remains as US Herk posted and many others- it's the "Warfighters" who are being held hostage by this USAF procurement mess.
Those airframes and engines are wearing out due to Tanking demands all over this world.

As the RFP comes out to address the GAO eight points that were found deficient, re-submit a revised proposal by both competitors and let the better Tanker win and get on with the show!

Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY:ok:

PS: Senator Allen from Washington State is already complaining that the "deck" is still stacked toward Norhthrop Grumman-EADS, when will she quit mouthing off.

Jig Peter

11th Jul 2008, 17:35

There's an item on today's Flightglobal (11th July) to the effect that the new selectors are to be told to give no credit for "extra" capability. So the so-patriotic Pols & Co are definitely going to fix a 767 "win" this time round ...
If NG "lose" (having already "won") they could always pull out and then offer USAF the A400M, which should have got airborne before Christmas - if Marshalls have got the Herc test-bed airborne at last, that is ...
just a thought, as the rest of this thread (like the "contest") is going round in circles, innit ?
:p

brickhistory

11th Jul 2008, 18:39

jp,

In 2004, Boeing 'won' the contest. Then it was determined that the rules weren't quite followed and the competition was re-opened. Did you complain about that decision?

Again, while not advocating for the lesser tanker to win, whichever it might be, complaining about this decision doesn't seem warranted.

How about a novel concept of issue the proposal, then whomever meets it following the rules without outside influence, with the best price, wins?

US Herk

12th Jul 2008, 00:37

Further to my last - I really, really don't care anymore who "wins". There will always be fault to be found, or areas lacking in any aircraft - they are, by nature, compromises - the folks on the line will make it work. Just as they've made 60 year old aircraft work...

And no matter how good an aircraft is at "X", someone will shout how they're deficient in "Y" or the other aircraft is better at "Y" - it truthfully doesn't matter.

Give us something & we'll get on with it.

Refuelled with a "new" KC-135R today - a '63 model!!!

GreenKnight121

12th Jul 2008, 01:17

In 2004, Boeing 'won' the contest. Then it was determined that the rules weren't quite followed and the competition was re-opened. Did you complain about that decision?

Well, you bricked your history here...

In 2004 there was NO "competition"... the deal was a no-bid, sole-source lease of the KC767 without any consideration of any other possibility.

The "rules that weren't quite followed" were those banning conflict of interest, and pay-offs in the form of high-paying job positions in return for a crooked lease deal. It was a corruption issue, plain & simple... nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the KC767.

Modern Elmo

12th Jul 2008, 01:28

If NG "lose" (having already "won") they could always pull out and then offer USAF the A400M ...

Please explain why the USAF needs A400's, instead of more C-17's.

brickhistory

12th Jul 2008, 01:39

BEagle

12th Jul 2008, 07:15

It was only when, at an independent research organisation, we conducted an indepenedent assessment of capability based upon defined RW conditions (10000 ft balanced field, sea level +15 deg C and still-air) that the truth about the KC-767A was revealed....

It was a simple problem and one for which each nation was asked to supply their own data:

Given a 4-hour sortie from 10000ft balanced field at sea level, ISA, still air and assuming the same aerodrome characteristics for landing (4 hours from take-off to landing, land with equivalent of 1 hr fuel burn remaining to tanks dry), state the maximum offload capability of each tanker type.

The answer:

KC-767: 50000 kg
A310MRTT: 45500 kg
A330MRTT: 82500 kg

First question from the American data providers was a request to use 12000 ft balanced field, not 10000ft. This was refused.

It would be interesting to learn whether the USAF made specific requirements for RW performance. E.g. Mildenhall to Mildenhall at +15C and still-air, what would be the max fuel available at RTOW and 3-crew only ZFW without cargo?

If Boeing win, it will be difficult for the KC-767A to be known as anything other than 'The Tanker the USAF Didn't Want'. And when being flown in Guantanamo Bay class luxury in an austere, windowless environment, the KC-767A's passnegers can think about the normal airline standards being enjoyed by those fortunate enough to be flying in the A330MRTT.

Give the USAF the casting vote - and tell the whining politicians to get lost!

JFZ90

12th Jul 2008, 09:10

GK121, the details of the first tanker fiasco are really moot (other than the USAF and Boeing being corrupt).

EADS and the Europeans were more than happy to have that one go down the tubes since it wasn't fair.

How can they b1tch about this one since the USAF screwed a different but still unfair pooch?

Again, for the last time, I'm not advocating for either one as the better tanker just get something decided and start building.

Brick - these are not really comparable incidents as you suggest. The first was clearly a totally inappropriate fraudulant anti-competitive stitch up, the latter appears to be a 99% fairly run competition with some fairly minor discrepancies that have been blow up to cast doubt on the outcome. I note that good lawyers can always turn such technicalities into major problems, and those running competitions need to be extremely careful (it appears they weren't careful enough - however it doesn't appear 'malicious' to me).

It seems possibile the USAF will be absolutely seething over this, and resentment at Boeing for causing this stink will be on a scale that will ensure when its done 100% fairly this time they will again, in all likelihood, loose. It could be interesting in that given the spotlight now on this, and hence the need to do it now absolutely fairly - it could actually prove to be very difficult to politically manipulate without the US looking like muppets globally (of course this maybe an acceptable price to the administration for home grown votes).

I'd hope that NG, having being awarded the contract once, can claim huge damages if they subsequently do not win again due to lost revenue, all the huge long lead time orders they'll have placed with suppliers, the investment they will have made to start up production etc. There could already be huge amounts of early KC45 spend committed by NG that the US taxpayer will have to stump up for even if the competition is overturned. Anyone know how long NG were in "Go Mode" before things the decision was officially overturned? I assume the USAF will now have put NG work on hold, but even this could still be costing them a fortune.

Jig Peter

12th Jul 2008, 10:41

The goldilocks factor favours the A400M - C-17 ... Too much aircraft for quite a lot of tasks, C-130 not quite big enough these days (internal width) ... A400M - just right for modern military loads ... (Still unproven, specially the engines ...).
Watch Marshalls at Cambridge for news of ground run progress - and getting the poor old Herc flying - and then the joy at Seville when at last they're cleared to get all four engines flying together in formation on the A400M.
:rolleyes:
P L U S ... The A400M's not from Boeing ... 'nuff said.

Lee Norberg

12th Jul 2008, 13:03

JFZ90 wrote: Anyone know how long NG were in "Go Mode" before things the decision was officially overturned? I assume the USAF will now have put NG work on hold, but even this could still be costing them a fortune.

As soon as Boeing filed the "protest" with the GAO, there was an immediate "stop work" issued by USAF- just like Lockheed-Martin did when they protested the USN BAMS UAV. In both cases from what I know, there is immediate US Government oversight (by local DCMA) to audit job-charging for the suspension period. Other long-lead activities like purchased CFE from vendors was placed on-hold and staffing requisitons were also suspended. Many plans are impacted and skills have to be either
"retained" someway or reassigned.

As for NGC, I work for them in Bethpage, NY (different division) and of course they are dismayed at this political "football" being played in Washington, DC. As other posters here have said- let the better aircraft win based on the performance criteria spelled out in the RFP!

Yes, Boeing won the protest- but their tanker is a "paper-airplane". The NGC/EADS Airbus is flying and has made fuel transfers, end -of-story!

Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY:ok:

PaperTiger

13th Jul 2008, 00:38

Boeing won the protest- but their tanker is a "paper-airplane".Except for those already delivered to Japan, of course.

(I know the interior fit is probably different, but it IS a KC-767.)

GreenKnight121

13th Jul 2008, 01:36

And in flight test for Italy.

BEagle

13th Jul 2008, 04:58

Except that the Japanese aircraft (over 18 months late) is just a windowless Boeing 767-200ER with a boom. The Italian aeroplane is also a 767-200ER with a boom and much of its two and a half year delay is down to the problematic wing AAR pod system which suffered buffet limitations at normal AAR speeds.

None of the 3 767 tankers now flying are anything like the KC-767A, apart from the name. The KC-X competitor offered by Boeing has yet to be built, let alone fly, whereas the A330MRTT is well ahead and has completed all aerodynamic flight testing.

The KC-767A is based on the 767-200LRF, amongst other sub variants, and has different engines and an increased maximum fuel load - substantial modifications which weren't needed for the A330MRTT.

So, whilst it is true to say that there are 3 767 tankers now flying, they are simply converted airliners. The version on offer to the USAF is years away from first flight, let alone completion of its test programme and is indeed still very much a 'paper aeroplane'. Long before the KC-767A would ever become reality, the A330MRTT will be in service with the RAAF and other nations.....

Lee Norberg

13th Jul 2008, 12:49

BEagle wrote: The version on offer to the USAF is years away from first flight, let alone completion of its test programme and is indeed still very much a 'paper aeroplane'

Thanks for backing me up on the "paper-airplane" analysis.

Lee:ok:

brakechute

13th Jul 2008, 13:34

Here, possibly, is the image of the Frankentanker, the 'minor derivative' of the 767. Boeing were also promising a 'new' boom as well. All of these promises have yet to leave the drawing board.

http://http://www.flickr.com/photos/liem/2224074677/

PaperTiger

13th Jul 2008, 14:51

Long before the KC-767A would ever become reality, the A330MRTT will be in service with the RAAF and other nations.But would that be exactly the same as a KC-45 ? Somehow I doubt it, and I assume both proposals promised to meet the required delivery schedules. Would Boeing have subsequently encountered production delays ? Would NG/EADS ? Judging from recent events I'd say the likely answer is yes to both.

MarkD

13th Jul 2008, 18:27

maybe I missed something, but while I knew SDD-1 had flown and I knew the KC-45 boom had transferred fuel from an A310, I was not aware that "The NGC/EADS Airbus is flying and has made fuel transfers" i.e. as a mated package.

PaperTiger

13th Jul 2008, 23:04

I was not aware that "The NGC/EADS Airbus is flying and has made fuel transfers" i.e. as a mated package.It's immaterial anyway, which is why I sought to deflect this train of thought.

The USAF picked the airframe they wanted presumably because it is the better of the two. Having a working prototype was not part of the RFP providing, as I said before, both responses met the I/S date requirement.
Did it in fact count for anything ? Only the USAF knows.

I think NG/EADS just got shafted. I still think they'll get (most of) it after all this expensive rehash, but I'll also be expecting some umm.. offset to end up going BA's way. KC-46 anyone ?

Lee Norberg

14th Jul 2008, 11:30

Here is the link to the video showing A310 to F-16 fuel hook-up:

America's New Tanker - KC-45 (http://www.americasnewtanker.com/videos2.php)

Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY:ok:

Some additional news from EADS Media Day as reported 7/13/08 in Leeham News:

Gallois, Enders and EADS North America COO John Young (no relation to the Defense Department’s chief procurement officer of the same name) are confident Northrop Grumman will win the recompete for the tanker. Collectively, they said only a few of the seven items of the protest filed by Boeing are centered on Northrop’s KC-30 bid, which is based on the Airbus A330-200; the other items had to do with the USAF process and analysis. The EADS officials believe that Boeing won’t offer a plane different than the KC-767AT that lost the competition. Young opined that the Air Force recompete decision could come as late as March instead of the end of the year, simply because the timeline outlined by the Defense Department is probably too aggressive.

PS: I personally know EADS North America COO John Young while John was at Grumman (now Northrop Grumman) and played against him in Grumman League Softball Games- he was a good shortstop!

Jig Peter

14th Jul 2008, 13:06

A video has appeared of a Congressman called Dick (no comment from me at least), urgently appealing for the new round of the Tanker-battle to stick to the "original specification". What he didn't say, and perhaps doesn't know, is that that spec was written (like those for the KC-97 and -135) by Boeing, round the aircraft they had available. The difference now is that there's an alternative which the USAF found to be better. At Boeing, that hurts, of course, so they feed their spokespersons in Congress with sufficient half-truths and shaded argumentation to make the night's nooze; hoping that nobody will pick up on the ploy ...
Nice to see that someone on the JSF programme has also seen through the Seattle-originated smoke and mirrors, this time about the F/A-18... With such evidence of standard company tricks (legal, but vulnerable) it is to be hoped that the new examiners will be convinced that what comes out of Chicago/Seattle and their verbose mouthpieces needs very close examination. Very close indeed ...
Nice also to see that NGC/EADS are "confident" ... Go, people, go !!!
:8

Lee Norberg

14th Jul 2008, 17:35

Jig Peter wrote: Nice also to see that NGC/EADS are "confident" ... Go, people, go !!!

Well folks here is a NGC press release from today, says it all:

FARNBOROUGH, England - July 14, 2008 - Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE:NOC) Tanker team announced today that all four initial tanker System Design and Development (SDD) airframes are scheduled for final assembly and initial flight testing by the end of 2009. The first two SDD airframes have been built and flown, and are awaiting modification to the tanker configuration.

"As we've always said, Northrop Grumman is ready now; and having all four SDD airframes ready next year shows our commitment to the U.S. Air Force, the Department of Defense and our Airmen who are currently forced to fly 50-year-old tankers," said Paul Meyer, Northrop Grumman vice president and general manager of Air Mobility Systems. "While our competitor still has not built the tanker or boom system they offered -- our configuration is built, tested and flying now -- and has been selected by four other allied nations. Clearly our tanker is superior, offering better fuel efficiency, greater fuel offload and much lower risk. It's won all five competitions against the 767."

Flying aircraft vs. Paper Aircraft!

Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY:ok:

MarkD

14th Jul 2008, 18:22

It's immaterial anyway, which is why I sought to deflect this train of thought.
[snip]
Having a working prototype was not part of the RFP
I'm not saying having a working prototype was material to the RFP. It was material to the statement that I quoted (post 343). While it absolutely made sense to test the boom from a 310, that's not the same thing as a mated A330+mission system+fuel system+transfer system test, which is what I initially inferred from the statement "The NGC/EADS Airbus is flying and has made fuel transfers, end -of-story!".

JFZ90

14th Jul 2008, 19:42

While its not clear here whether technology maturity was a feature of the competitive process for the Tanker or not - it would be quite reasonable for it to be a factor.

Unproven technology (or that with a low Technology Readiness Level or TRL, a NASA metric for measuring such things) is always associated with cost, performance and timescale risk - considering this should always feature in any procurement decision making.

You would normally only consider high technology risk projects over more established technologies if the performance benefits were essential or worth it (F-22 vs F15) or they offer cheaper long term benefits (e.g. investing in risky hi-tech production automation worth it due to massive cost savings downstream). It doesn't look like the Boeing 767 tanker falls into either category however, so the "paper aircraft" vs "real aircraft" should actually be quite a big issue, politics aside.

greenhornet

15th Jul 2008, 11:41

Excuse my ignorance, but how many KC-767s, in any format, are actually flying? What stage is their boom developed to? Are they making wet contacts with a range of receivers yet? Just out of interest, not making a statement here.

ORAC

15th Jul 2008, 12:31

Flight International: New Rules for Second KC-X Competition Create Controversy (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/14/225514/new-rules-for-second-kc-x-competition-create-controversy.html)

Boeing supporters in Congress throwing toys out of the cot as the DoD rewrites the requirements to support what they want, as the GAO complained they hadn't. The problem of Boeing being that the rewrite backs the case for the KC-330, not the KC-767....

Postman Plod

15th Jul 2008, 13:18

Am I wrong in thinking that this is just one of 2 (or more?) USAF tanker replacement programmes required in the next couple of years? If so, what are the likely differing requirements between this and the others, and why are Boeing being so obstructive when they have other opportunities to bid? Is it really likely that the USAF will put all their eggs in one basket with regards to tanker types, and therefore isn't it likely that Boeing will win something anyway?

brickhistory

15th Jul 2008, 13:23

Ideally, there will be only one new tanker. Adding another adds to training, spares, and other infrastructure costs that really aren't needed.

That was the idea.

However, I wouldn't be too surprised to see two selected as a compromise.

Politics as usual.

ORAC

15th Jul 2008, 14:56

There are 3 planned tanker programmes over the next 30 years, KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-z.htm). These will initially replace the KC-135, then the KC-10.

The design for the KC-X was left somewhat open to allow the best, as the USAF saw it, proposal to win. If it was a larger jet, then the selection in the KC-Y or Z competitions could be scoped to give the best fleet size/number mix. Buy small now, large later; large now, larger later etc, depending on the need in 20 years time (small wars, tactical tankers; threat from China, large tankers to drag formations and support across the Pacific etc).

greenhornet

16th Jul 2008, 10:09

No one is stupid enough to consider beginning operating more than one type of tanker these days. There will only be one type purely for economics. A larger tanker will suit the USAF more than a medium. If Boeing had the A330 and EADS had the 767, there would be no question that Boeing had the winning jet. The 767 is old technology, before long the only operators will be the suckers who bought the KC-767. Bit like the KC-10/DC-10 situation?

ORAC

16th Jul 2008, 10:23

I disagree, there is a case for a strategic/tactical tanker mix. Through over 20 years I found the VC-10 to large on many occasions (QRA) and wanted something with a payload of about 50-60 tons, other times it was useful to have the VC-10s on the towlines without having transit home and back and just topping them up with a Tristar.

The one concept I saw I would love to see built was a tactical tanker (LM or NG? Can't remember which). Two man crew in a pressurised cockpit with bang seats. Unpressurised composite fuselage with sealed tanks, idefensive aids, stealth etc. High mounted tail engines to give cleanest flow behind the wings, integrated hoses. Long wing which looked suitable for high level ops

Looked like a great platform for supported ops in hostile territory, and a perfect platform for having a UAV version on station on-station just in case.

Never be built though - unless it already has.....

greenhornet

16th Jul 2008, 12:36

I guess the Brits might come up with something odd like that, no doubt a thing of beauty like their other creations. Just kidding, you obviously have some decent experience on your side. I think large tanker can do what a medium tanker can do, not the other way round, and the USAF needs big boom offloads for it's strategic operations. Smaller hose refueling offloads can be done as it is now for helos etc by c-130. Time will tell, but I can't see USAF buying both KC-45 and KC-767. The US doesn't have the cash to do inefficient things like that. The whole KC-X tanker selection process is a dog and pony show, bit like judge judy sorting a poodle custody battle. Obama, Hillary..save us.:rolleyes:

PaperTiger

16th Jul 2008, 16:31

I disagree, there is a case for a strategic/tactical tanker mix.Even if there is no operational case, this "decision" process is now more political than military. Boeing will get something I'm quite sure, maybe not the entire NTT fleet but perhaps a smaller 767 order, some more KC-135Rs or some totally unrelated "bung". :mad:

Lee Norberg

16th Jul 2008, 19:50

Originally posted by Greenhornet:

I think large tanker can do what a medium tanker can do, not the other way round, and the USAF needs big boom offloads for it's strategic operations.

This article tells it all, bigger is better:

Why the Air Force Picked Northrop’s Tanker » Blog Archive » DoD Buzz (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/07/15/why-the-air-force-picked-northrops-tanker/)

Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY:ok:

PS, Today 7/22/08:

As a side comment to Boeing playing the US Job card on the KC-X, look what they dioing on the A-10 Rewing Contract:

Irony or farce: Boeing ships US defense jobs to South Korea? - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/07/irony-or-farce-boeing-ships-us.html)

Maybe they talk out of both sides of their mouths. :suspect:

mary_hinge

6th Aug 2008, 19:56

UPDATE 2-Pentagon revives tanker contest; bids due by Oct 1 | Industries | Industrials, Materials & Utilities | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN0645972820080806)

WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday reopened a $35 billion refueling aircraft competition between Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote (http://www.reuters.com/stocks/quote?symbol=BA.N), Profile (http://www.reuters.com/stocks/companyProfile?symbol=BA.N), Research (http://www.reuters.com/stocks/researchReports?symbol=BA.N), Stock Buzz (http://reuters.socialpicks.com/stock/r/BA)) and Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote (http://www.reuters.com/stocks/quote?symbol=NOC.N), Profile (http://www.reuters.com/stocks/companyProfile?symbol=NOC.N), Research (http://www.reuters.com/stocks/researchReports?symbol=NOC.N), Stock Buzz (http://reuters.socialpicks.com/stock/r/NOC)), with sources saying aerial refueling was viewed as more important than survivability, airlift and operational utility.

The Defense Department last month said it would redo the competition for 179 new aerial tankers after government auditors found significant errors in the Air Force's handling of the last contest, which Northrop and its European subcontractor EADS EAD.PA> won in February.
On Wednesday, it gave the companies 98 pages of amendments and clarifications to the original request for proposals, addressing concerns raised by the Government Accountability Office when it sustained a protest by losing bidder Boeing.

In a briefing for lawmakers, Pentagon officials said the revamped competition would also give more credit for an aircraft's ability to offload fuel beyond the required amount, a decision that could favor the larger A330-based plane offered by the Northrop team, said two congressional aides.

"There is additional value to the government for the additional fuel offload amount above threshold," the revised document now reads.
Boeing had argued in its protest that the Air Force wrongly gave Northrop credit for exceeding the threshold requirement, even after assuring Boeing officials that no extra credit would be given. Now the military is stating its wishes more clearly.

The change "appears to justify a bigger aircraft with greater fuel offload capability," said an aide to Rep. Norman Dicks, a Washington state Democrat who has strongly backed Boeing. Continued... (http://javascript<b></b>:goToPage(2);)

FOG

6th Aug 2008, 22:20

Greenhornet,

A false premise that a large tanker can do everything that a smaller one can’t.

The real world experience is that there are fields that can operate –135s that can’t handle the –10 from infrastructure point of view (PCN). The answer of moving to a further base becomes a no-go from a number (additional security personnel required in country, location, the ugly Americans telling the locals where we will go, etc.) factors to political factors not allowing sorties being flown from another country.

The additional costs of civil engineers, security, lost opportunity, political “face” etc. of not having a –135 sized tanker are huge but not very quantifiable.

Short version is the Boeing best suits the mission assigned to the USAF (and said they were on board with) while the Airbus is what the USAF wants to cover up other deficiencies in air transport and justify a larger (or less shrinkage) USAF personnel.

S/F, FOG

Jackonicko

6th Aug 2008, 23:07

FOG,

You're talking bollocks.

If you have less than 10,000 ft balanced field length (as you'd find at unrepresentative tanker bases like Mildenhall and Fairford), you can't operate a KC-767 with its full load of 92 tonnes - you have to offload 16 tonnes.

You can operate a KC-330 with its full load of 111 tonnes from that runway.

So the bigger airplane can operate from smaller airfields.

It can sometimes be affected by smaller ramps, but who wants to cram 767s wing to wing for the enemy to mortar anyway?

And concrete is cheap.

FOG

7th Aug 2008, 01:44

Jacko,

Please get off the simplistic runway length BS for an asset that is supposed to be used for deployable use and not strat. That is deploying to operational locations for operations in a military sense all over the world and not just.

Concrete being cheap is a flippant, uninformed and marks one as a pure amateur. The concrete itself is cheap. What are the costs involved with tearing out the old surfaces and dealing with them? What are the costs in dealing with sub-strate improvement? Where are you getting the CE assets? The location and transport of the raw materials? What are the costs in terms of time to upgrade?

As a journalist you have little training little experience in actually taking core samples to evaluate runway strength, evaluate security measures required, etc. It is far simpler, faster, and thus cheaper in most cases to add AM2 matting to a runway vice dealing with PCN issues of runways, taxiways, and ramps.

As far as being susceptible to mortar you are kidding? The outlying fields away from built up areas that can be patrolled or the city? I’ll give you a hint in that there is lots of recent historical data.

FOG

ORAC

12th Aug 2008, 15:56

AW&ST - 11 Aug 2008: Boeing Leaning Toward Not Re-bidding KC-X
Word that Boeing is strongly considering a “no bid” position for the next round of the U.S. Air Force refueling tanker competition is spreading only two days after the Pentagon released the revised KC-X draft request for proposals (RFP).

Multiple sources familiar with Boeing’s internal discussions say company officials are strongly considering the option of not submitting a proposal as the company’s Integrated Defense Systems sector tries to respond to the draft RFP within the government’s speedy timeline. Comments are due this week.

The move would leave the Defense Dept. without a competition for the KC-135 tanker replacement. A demand from Congress for a competition after the botched attempt to sole-source the work to Boeing in 2003 was what drove the KC-X competition and eventually led to the selection of the Northrop Grumman/EADS Airbus A330-200-based design in February. However, the Government Accountability Office found errors in the scoring of the bids during the last round and directed the government to amend its RFP.

After Northrop Grumman threatened a no-bid position in the last round, the Pentagon added items to the RFP that would take into account the attributes of its A330-200-based design, which was submitted jointly with EADS.

Now, however, the Pentagon is pushing for the replacement tankers as soon as possible after multiple delays. It remains unclear if a no-bid position from Boeing would drag out the KC-X competition or it if would compel the Pentagon to attempt a sole-source of the work to Northrop Grumman/EADS.

Jackonicko

12th Aug 2008, 17:06

Fog,

Again, you're talking bollocks.

Runway length is more critical, more often, than parking space (the metric where the KC-767's much smaller wingspan actually counts, assuming that you're going to park 'em wingtip to wingtip).

The idea that the KC-330 imposes more of a load on runways and taxyways was not borne out by the RAF, Italian AMI or NATO studies into tanker basing - and if it were an issue, the 330 is easily available with an extra centreline bogie.

There are PLENTY of real world deployed tanker bases with runways that are too short for a KC-767 to operate from, fully laden (minor bases like Fairford, Brize and Mildenhall....) whereas the RAF did not find a SINGLE base that it wanted to operate from where pavement loadings prevented A330 operations. To my surprise, they didn't even find one where the wingspan was a game-stopper.

You're absolutely right that extending a runway is not cheap (and that's what you often need if you want a KC-767 to do a KC-45's job) - but extending parking ramps is - relatively speaking.

The KC-767 can NEVER take off with an A330 full load of gas. The worrying thing is that on real world tanker runways it can't take off with a much smaller KC-767 full load either.

flatfootsam

12th Aug 2008, 17:31

FOG..or pea souper by the look of the patronising 'logic'

The PCN/ACN issue is not an issue as they're already known for all airports the the RFP asked for - you don't have to muck about drilling samples and ground prep' for taxiway extensions ect, and there aren't many - if any- airports that the KC-767 can operate to that the KC-45 cant.

Even if for the few cases it was prohibative, the alternatives for diverting are far higher with the airbus than with the frankentanker. Take a look at the KC-10's operating parameters

The KC-30/45 take off with load performance is the critical issue - runway length, performance and operating flexibility are the criteria

as for mortars...no idea, it's not in the RFP

Saintsman

12th Aug 2008, 18:43

The move would leave the Defense Dept. without a competition for the KC-135 tanker replacement

Nothing stopping EADS offering the A310 MRTT as 'competition'.....

Art Field

12th Aug 2008, 19:10

Could it be that Boeing will deliberately fail to make a bid for the Tanker contract so that there is no competition, therefore the competition is void and they will then attempt to pinch it at their leisure?

FOG

12th Aug 2008, 20:03

Flotsam,

Actually the mortars were brought about by another poster as part of the security piece, which can go into expeditionary deployment that the USAF has stated they are going to support. The USAF attitude of the USA or USMC giving up an extra Bn. of troops to protect an extra base hasn’t passed the smell test.

PCN/ACN are issues for quite a number of airports. I have actually measured more than a few airports that are/were considered for U.S. tanker ops using both -135 and -10 numbers. I do not consider 3 or something in the teens as an adequate number of sorties to be considered for basing. I do not have a CE, just a ME and just an USMC pilot thrown into the expeditionary airfield world where we have to consider real world factors in real places we want to go.

I am well aware of the errors in the data base. These errors are not just PCN/ACN but also often fuel storage/intake/transfer data.

Jacko,

This is not for the RAF. This is for the USAF to support the mission the USAF has signed up for in support of the rest of the DoD. Last I checked none of the bases you mentioned is in a geographical location to support theater expeditionary operations, but I am probably missing things. I have actually checked places like Africa, the Pacific, and a few others.

Extending runways is actually cheaper than and faster than dealing with PCN/CAN issues, especially if one uses AM2 matting to extend the over/under run areas. There is at least one runway the RAF was looking at in Africa that is listed as ok for KC-10 ops that is good for only a day or so worth of sorties, while having huge ramps the taxiway with clearance for any U.S. tanker is the center one obviously slowing both launch and recovery. I can think of two runways that the Airbus is a much better fit, length cannot be extended (practically) and very strong runways (though both need surface improvement as they are currently unimproved class C surfaces).

S/F, FOG

Jackonicko

12th Aug 2008, 22:29

kC-X is indeed intended to support USAF expeditionary ops in the post Cold War world. This is "the mission the USAF has signed up for in support of the rest of the DoD." Not quite the same thing as flying exactly the same mission as the -135 did.

Not supporting Cold War ops with single tankers supporting single Buffs, for example, and not primarily operating from Stateside ANG bases where fitting into existing hangars is the most important factor.

Being able to operate from the maximum number of tanker FOLs is therefore of pivotal importance (giving the flexibility to base further forward, if required, or further back, if necessary). The ability to take as much fuel as possible to a towline and to be able to stay on station for as long as necessary is also useful, as is the ability to support a deployment by carrying standard pallets side-by-side (something the 'not-quite-widebody' 767 can't do).

And that's why the USAF selected the more capable tanker airplane, which also happens to be the bigger one.

West Coast

13th Aug 2008, 05:03

The USAF attitude of the USA or USMC giving up an extra Bn. of troops to protect an extra base hasn’t passed the smell test.

Nor will it ever unless large numbers of the ACE is based there. Even then, tasking grunts to protect an aviation facility would go over like a fart in church

And concrete is cheap.

Obviously never been through an EIR.

Jig Peter

19th Aug 2008, 16:45

Saintsman - The only thing to stop the A310 MRTT being offered as a competitor in this round is that it's out of production - which the 767 will be if Boeing don't get at least something ...
:cool:

D-IFF_ident

20th Aug 2008, 08:43

IIRC NG threatened to 'not bid' in a previous round of this fiasco, and then the RFP was changed. A cynic might suggest that NG's suggestion of not bidding was made to force such a change to the RFP. Now there is a rumor that Boeing might also threaten to 'not bid' as the RFP, in Boeing's opinion, now favors NG. Again, a cynic might suggest that Boeing might be trying the same tactic that NG might have, allegedly, tried last time round.

Unfortunately, IMHO, it's going to take some highly paid help with substantial cojonas to make the decision to buy the best jet for the job, and stick with it this time, regardless of the politics, backhanders and 'but what if' scenarios that might happen once in every million missions.

Which jet is best fot the job? We can argue that all day long, and I'm sure we will, but it's the Airbus product; some of us just need to stop hating on the French and deal with it.

ORAC

24th Aug 2008, 09:02

Boeing Mulls Leaving Air Force Tanker Rebidding (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3687764&c=AME&s=AIR)

WASHINGTON - U.S. aerospace giant Boeing said Friday it may exit the rebidding for a massive contract to build U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tankers unless the Pentagon allows more time to rework its proposal.

The Department of Defense (DoD) was forced in June to rebid the $35 billion contract after congressional auditors found flaws in the Air Force's decision to award it to Northrop Grumman and its European partner, EADS.

Boeing's loss of the contest in February to rival Northrop and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, parent of Airbus, raised protectionist hackles in the U.S. Congress and shocked the market. Boeing has been the sole supplier of the refueling tankers. The Pentagon contract is for 179 aircraft, the initial phase of a fleet replacement project worth about $100 billion over the next 30 years. A Boeing withdrawal from the rebidding would leave the lucrative contract without competition.

Boeing spokesman Dan Beck told AFP that his company needs six months to present a new bid because the company thinks the new requirements now call for a plane that can carry more fuel than the original proposal.

"We have asked the Pentagon to allow a six-month timetable for submittal of proposals in this competition," he said in a phone interview. "The reason we're asking for that is since the issuance of the draft request for proposal two weeks ago, as we've engaged in our discussions with the Pentagon, and .... they're asking for a different kind of airplane than they asked for in the first competition." Beck added, "If we don't get the sufficient time to prepare that proposal, there's really little option for us other than to no-bid in this competition."

The politically charged battle over the contract to build 179 tankers - one of the largest defense contracts in recent years - pits the KC-45, a militarized version of Airbus's 330, and the KC-767, a new version of the Boeing 767. The Government Accountability Office in June upheld Boeing's challenge of the Air Force decision, saying it found "significant errors" in the evaluation of the two bids. The Air Force decided in February it preferred Northrop's KC-45 entry, a militarized version of the Airbus 330, because it was larger and could carry more fuel and cargo than Boeing's KC-767, a modified version of the Boeing 767.

The Boeing spokesman said Aug. 22 that after three meetings between Boeing and Pentagon officials, the company has concluded the new bid will require a plane capable of carrying more fuel than the plane it originally offered. "This is a new competition. Make no mistake about that. The requirements have changed," Beck said.

The DoD has said it will release the final request for proposals next week.

In response to a question about Boeing's options if the Pentagon does not allow extra time, he said: "One of the options we would have is to protest the (bidding process)."......

BEagle

24th Aug 2008, 09:16

So,

1. Get your hands burned by colluding over a military contract.
2. Lose the revised competition because your submission isn't good enough.
3. Do a Violet-Elizabeth over the results of the competition.
4. Persuade the politicos that the result should be put on hold.

..and now 5. Having worked out that the 767 still isn't good enough, squeal for another delay to an already delayed programme, annoying your potential customer in the process.

Riiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhhtttttttt............... :rolleyes:

Jig Peter

24th Aug 2008, 15:38

Seems as though Boeing's "betting" on the Senator from Illinois winning the election and then relying on standard Chicago politics to kick in.
jon Ostrower on Flightblogger had some interesting sketches of 767 variants and their tail-scrape angles (without boom), which could make any 767 version marginal for the job anyway.
They'll be shouting for even more toys to throw out of the pram ... And if recent polls showing Sen. McCain going ahead are right, they could still be deep in the mire ...
(No Euro-Schadenfreude on my part, of course ...).
:8

Lee Norberg

26th Aug 2008, 21:43

Jig Peter wrote:

"Seems as though Boeing's "betting" on the Senator from Illinois winning the election and then relying on standard Chicago politics to kick in."

Obviously Boeing is trying to push this off to the new administration, yes- they are counting on the "Senator from Illinois" as Jig Peter
stated in his post.

Enough-is-enough from Boeing, hopefully DOD will not bow to pressure tactics from Boeing and stick to their December deadline!

Yes, I work for Northrop Grumman and I'm tired of this protest nonsense as well as the BAMS UAV protest which the GAO denied Lockheed-Martin. Who ever heard of two wins and then two successive protests.

Lee N.:ok:

greenhornet

1st Sep 2008, 12:07

"a large tanker can do everything that a smaller one can’t" is not what I said FOG.

I said "a large tanker can do what a medium tanker can, not the other way round".

ACN/PCN is a limiting factor for the airbus, but not critically because it has range and endurance. The 767 still requires a long runway despite better ACN.

In any case, if the airfield doesnt have the gas storage required to support tanking ops, whats the advantage in being there?

XV277

1st Sep 2008, 19:38

Boeing Mulls Leaving Air Force Tanker Rebidding (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3687764&c=AME&s=AIR)

"...they're asking for a different kind of airplane than they asked for in the first competition." .

Yes, one that must be called an Airbus A-330

TheHeff

4th Sep 2008, 13:29

KC-767 vs KC-45. I don't think so! This is Boeing vs Airbus or "USA" vs "Not USA". It's protectionism at its very best . . and why not? You can't seriously expect Boeing to lie down and let a "Foreigner" take over, without a fight - It's just not the American way

Maybe the Europeans should follow suit and stop buying F15s, 16s, 18s, 35s, C130s, C17s et al, and go with Typhoon, Gripen or Rafale and A400. Fat chance!

The qualities of either platform is almost incidental. Even the top fly-boys of the USAF have said they don't actually mind which one they get, so long as they get one of them . . . soon!

As a footnote, Boeing could delay things even more by waiting till the very end of the response period before declaring a no-bid . . . Over to Congress. Then its "Seconds out, Round 3".

;)

MarkD

5th Sep 2008, 17:30

at this stage can't see any decision made until the election is over, given one candidate basically backing each side.

knowitall

9th Sep 2008, 23:25

Delivery of Italy's Tankers Slips to '09

Delivery of Italy's Tankers Slips to '09 - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3711809)

Eboy

10th Sep 2008, 14:34

"The Pentagon has cancelled a $35 billion competition for a new air refueling tanker, leaving the politically charged decision to a new administration, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Wednesday."

Gates Confirms Pentagon Cancels Tanker Competition (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200809101004DOWJONESDJONLINE000588_FORTUNE5.htm)

Jig Peter

10th Sep 2008, 15:24

See Bill Sweetman's comments on this Almighty Eff-up on www.Avweek.com (http://www.Avweek.com), than which it would be very hard to do better without profanity.
Thanks, Bill !
:ugh::ugh:

MarkD

10th Sep 2008, 15:58

Boeing officials responded that reducing the noise would also reduce the capability of the aircraft, and recommended the Italians change their specs.Are the export of US ears to Italy compliant with their National Security Interests?

Buzz Control

10th Sep 2008, 16:19

Full story here: US DoD cancels troubled KC-X tanker contest (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/10/315825/us-dod-cancels-troubled-kc-x-tanker-contest.html) :}

LowObservable

10th Sep 2008, 18:55

Jig Peter - fixed link:

Ares Homepage (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a927df2d5-3e93-4655-9810-05bad99bd954)

Flyingblind

11th Sep 2008, 00:11

Well done Boeing,

Your repeated obstruction in letting the customer select their chosen product does not hold you in a good light.

Antics like these make my 3 year old son look quite mature by comparison.

Then again all's fair in war and business.....right?

fltlt

11th Sep 2008, 02:25

Boeing openly stated they didn't understand the AF wanted a larger aircraft today, WTF over? If you propose the "wrong size aircraft" then according to FAR's you lose, period. I believe that is why Boeing has been making the "We will not bid", "There is not enough time to bid" noises. It takes a long time to rewrite a response with a different ac. But the whole sad part again, is that the the program is delayed for god knows how long, while self righteous, know nothing politicians interfere again, not to mention the careers of the blue suiters whose bosses did not stand up for them and say "Look morons, Boeing got it wrong!" PC gone mad.

D-IFF_ident

11th Sep 2008, 04:06

And the winner is..........

OMEGA

Hurrah, well done Ulick.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

recceguy

11th Sep 2008, 05:49

Boeing should first concentrate a little bit more in putting the 787 Ghostliner into the air....

They cannot even allocate the required resources to that (and the strike will not help) so how can you figure they could bring a new tanker design in such a few months ?

Anyway, the USAF is losing capacity in the process, and that's all that matters for many ...

BOEING777X

11th Sep 2008, 10:17

It'll be interesting to see if Airbus still proposes to link its RFP with a plan to shift A330 production to US soil (http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/09/11/tankercontract/).

Lee Norberg

12th Sep 2008, 12:45

Once again our "friends" at Boeing demonstrated their perfection in controlling Capitol Hill and the DOD to obtain their delaying tactics! How many US Senators and Congresspersons are in Boeing's pocket?

Lee N.:mad:

greenhornet

14th Sep 2008, 02:18

A new competition will give EADS more time to develop an off the shelf product for the USAF. Boeing are still in a state of disarray, plagued by failure and strikes, and don't have a competitive product in the hangar. Boeing will be starting from scratch while EADS will be delivering real tankers next year. I can hear those 50 year old KC-135 airframes groaning....let's hope they can hold up?

Eboy

18th Sep 2008, 01:03

John Young, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said in an interview at the Pentagon yesterday that under the tanker proposal from Northrop Grumman and its partner European Aeronautic Defence & Space, developing the first 68 aircraft would have cost $12.5 billion, compared with $15.4 billion under Boeing's plan.

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/17/AR2008091702857.html?hpid=moreheadlines)

MarkD

18th Sep 2008, 13:48

"A new competition will give EADS more time to develop an off the shelf product for the USAF."

You need money for that and the black holes of A400M, A350 and A380 are sucking EADS dry.

ORAC

8th Oct 2008, 12:24

Seattlepi: Aerospace Notebook: How about splitting the tanker award? (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/381228_air01.html)

With the Air Force tanker competition in limbo until after a new president and his administration takes over in January, a proposal by a powerful member of Congress that the Pentagon buy tankers from both The Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. has received a tentative nod from an unlikely corner.

"If they go to a dual award, which would mean not splitting the award but actually ordering one a month from each company, obviously we would look at that and be supportive of whatever the government wants to do," Ron Sugar, chief executive of Northrop Grumman, said Tuesday in an interview with Reuters. "Anything that gets good tankers to our airmen fast is probably a good thing," he added.

Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who chairs the House defense appropriations subcommittee, has proposed buying tankers from both Boeing and Northrop.

Boeing said it is not taking a position on a dual-buy option. "We look forward to a reopening of the competition to identify the right tanker to modernize its fleet of medium-sized tankers," a Boeing spokesman said in an e-mailed statement.

Although a split buy and a dual buy may not be the same thing, either would probably mean added costs to the Air Force because it would have to support different planes. And that's something that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said is not acceptable. Gates recently said he would recommend a presidential veto of any legislation out of Congress to split the tanker buy. Of course, Gates may not be the defense secretary for long once John McCain or Barack Obama becomes president in January.

The dual-buy option is getting more attention because of Murtha, whose appropriations subcommittee chairmanship gives him a lot of power over military spending.

Last week, Murtha disclosed that he had inserted language into the fiscal year 2009 defense appropriations bill that directs the Pentagon to study the feasibility of buying tankers from both Boeing and Northrop. Murtha said he wants to know, among other things, what the increased costs might be. But a dual buy is the only way to get tankers to the Air Force anytime soon, Murtha said, given that another protest is likely by the loser of the next competition, which will further delay the tanker acquisition process.

"What we said was 'Look at a dual buy,' " Murtha said at a news conference. "Now, Boeing doesn't like that and I don't know if Northrop likes that. The Defense Department definitely doesn't like that. But let me tell you something, we are not going to have tankers if we don't do that, I'm convinced."

Because the Airbus A330-based tanker offered by Northrop and its partner, EADS, the parent of Airbus, is ready to enter production, and Boeing's 767-based tanker for the Air Force is not, a dual buy likely would mean that Northrop would supply most of the early tankers to the Air Force, depending on when the first deliveries were scheduled.

The Air Force wants 179 tankers as it seeks to eventually replace its aging fleet of some 500 Eisenhower-era KC-135 tankers.

Northrop and EADS won the hotly disputed tanker competition earlier this year, but Boeing appealed, and the Government Accountability Office agreed that the Air Force made serious mistakes and ordered a rebidding. But Boeing threatened to withdraw from the competition if it did not have at least six months to offer a bigger tanker to meet new requirements set by the Pentagon, which hoped to award a tanker contract by the end of the year. So earlier this month Gates announced that the much-delayed tanker decision will be left to the next administration because there is not enough time while George Bush is president to conduct a fair competition.

Meanwhile, Boeing is taking the next few months to evaluate which of its jets might have the best shot at winning the $35 billion Air Force tanker competition. Boeing's 767-200 tanker that it offered is considerably smaller than the A330.

The possibility of a dual buy raises many questions, not the least of which is, would the Pentagon, should it agree to buy two different planes, still press ahead with a new tanker competition? Would Congress go along with a dual buy if it meant the tanker deal would cost more?

Regardless of the talk about a dual buy, the presidential race is likely to shape the tanker outcome. If Obama wins, he is seen as being more supportive of the Pentagon buying Boeing's plane.

Even though Northrop's Sugar said in the Reuters interview he could support buying tankers from both companies, if that's what the new administration wants, he also said Northrop is prepared to compete against Boeing again ... and again ... and again ... for the tanker contract. "We are going to do that as many times as it takes," he was quoted as saying.

ORAC

12th Mar 2009, 16:31

Murtha Wants Speedy Mixed Air Force Tanker Buy (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3986371&c=EUR&s=AIR)

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, told a conference in Washington on March 12 that he is in talks with House and Senate Appropriations panel leaders to increase supplemental defense funding to finally end the decade-long KC-135 replacement effort.

His idea, floated during a conference at the National Press Club sponsored by Aviation Week and McAleese & Associates, is to inflate the $67 billion supplemental request the Obama administration will send to Congress in coming weeks with funds tagged for the competition and "development work" on each team's planes. By putting the funds in the second 2009 supplemental, the Air Force would "get the planes sooner" than if appropriators waited to put the monies in the 2010 defense budget, due to Congress late in April.

Murtha's plan, if included in the final version of the supplemental, would add a new twist to the tanker saga by requiring the Air Force to buy some number of both planes. Boeing and Northrop-EADS still would compete under the Murtha plan, but not for the entire 179-plane, $35 billion contract. Whichever team the service deems "put forward the best proposal would get more" of the 179-plane pie, he said, and the other team would get a lesser number. That differs from talk of a "split buy," under which the Air Force would buy an equal number from each team.

Senior Air Force and Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, oppose buying both planes under the KC-135 replacement program because they say sustainment and maintenance costs would be too high.

Asked by Defense News whether a mixed buy would keep the team awarded fewer KC-X tankers from protesting the decision, a move that could again delay the program by years, Murtha said lawmakers were still working through details of his plan. "We hope we can work it out," Murtha said.

Asked whether a mixed or split buy would satisfy Boeing brass, Murtha grinned and replied: "Boeing will do what we ask them to do. They will be happy to get a tanker. ... Boeing has put a lot of money into this."

His comments came almost 24 hours after Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, House Armed Services air and land subcommittee chairman, told the same conference he supports splitting the contract between Boeing and Northrop-EADS. Abercrombie told reporters that because the Boeing and Northrop-EADS planes have different attributes, the Air Force could simply operate them in different regions of the globe.

Murtha and Abercrombie shot down a March 10 CQ Politics article that the White House Office of Management and Budget had ordered the Pentagon to delay the KC-X competition by five years to cut costs as part of the soon-to-conclude 2010 defense budget deliberations. "That is just not true," a stern-sounding Murtha told the conference.

ORAC

16th Jun 2009, 07:53

Defense News: Boeing Pitches 777 Tanker; Labels New USAF Bid 7A7 (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4140514&c=AME&s=TOP)

PARIS - Boeing is preparing to offer either the 777 or the 767 airframes when it rebids the U.S. tanker contest, the company said June 15.

Speaking at the Paris Air Show, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) president and CEO Jim Albaugh said he expected to see a request for proposals (RFP) this summer for the new U.S. Air Force tanker competition. "I expect it will not have nearly as many requirements as the last one," he said.

Boeing lost out on the last hotly competed tanker contest to a joint bid by Northrop Grumman and EADS that was based on the Airbus A330 airframe. But Boeing protested that contest, and the following Government Accountability Office report lambasted the Air Force for how it ran the contest. As a result, the order was cancelled and a new competition is being run between the rival manufacturers.

Albaugh said that Boeing would decide which aircraft to bid once it had seen the RFP. Meanwhile, it has renamed its tanker program the KC-7A7. Asked what the 'A' stood for, he was vague, but said that if the media wanted to pick a word, they could use "advanced."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

However, when this was discussed as an option, rather than the KC-767, for the KC-45 contract; the following points were made.

.....But there are serious issues for Boeing should it offer the 777 as a tanker. Its 777 production line in Everett is flush with commercial orders. Where could it find production slots to build 179 tankers for the Air Force? On the other hand, the 767 commercial program is winding down because that plane is being replaced by the 787.

Also, Boeing faces a time problem in developing either the 777 or the 767-400 as tankers. But it has already developed the 767-200 as a tanker for Italy and Japan, even though those planes are late. Northrop has repeatedly made the case in ads touting its plane over Boeing's 767-200 that the A330-200 tanker is already flying – and that the advanced 767-200 tanker for the Air Force is still a "paper" plane. The version of the 767-200 for the Air Force would be different than the eight tankers built for Italy and Japan.

Boeing said in 2006 that it would take about three years to modify the 777 into a tanker......

So, what, if anything has changed? And is the USAF in a position to accept a further 3-4 year delay in the programme?

Mr Quite Happy

16th Jun 2009, 09:09

Sounds to me like even Boeing doesn't want to go through with this charade.

Its all down the Senators and Congressmen now...

BEagle

16th Jun 2009, 10:44

Boeing is preparing to offer either the 777 or the 767 airframes when it rebids the U.S. tanker contest, the company said June 15.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

So, Boeing are saying that they can't identify which of their aircraft might better meet the specification? That's one reason why Airbus lost to the 767 for the Italian Air Force - the customer was expected to choose which of the proposed Airbus solutions would meet the specification. To which the customer repsonded "Well, if they haven't bothered to identify the better solution, they obviously aren't taking us seriously...."

3 years to develop a 777 tanker? Who would ever believe that, given that Boeing still hasn't flown a KC-767A, only warmed-over 767-200s for the JSDF and, perhaps one day, the Italian AF. And as for the 7-late-7 airliner...:hmm:

And what does the 'A' stand for in 'KC-7A7? ARSE!! The Boeing KC-7arse7!

Meanwhile the A330MRTT continues to develop well for both the KC-30A and FSTA programmes (the first 'FSTA' flew last week) and the A310MRTT is in service with both customers....

Rigex

16th Jun 2009, 13:58

In view of their desperation to have something to offer, I submit 7any7.

Cobra98

16th Jun 2009, 16:03

Might explain some of their unknowns relative to which aircraft to use.
If the USAF uses similar a similar L&M as last time then the 777 makes sense. If the USAF learns from their numerous errors, perhaps the original 767 would be a better proposal.

I wouldn't hold my breath if the same mid-level managers are still part of the source selection team ...:mad:

bumba

15th Sep 2009, 10:21

It looks like someone find peace in this KC767 drama:

Lawmakers claim Boeing victory in ruling - TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/homenews/news/57405--lawmakers-claim-boeing-victory-in-wto-ruling)

bumba

15th Sep 2009, 10:26

... and an interesting article after that!

Boeing officials on how WTO ruling should impact tanker (http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/178938.asp)

BEagle

15th Sep 2009, 13:34

Boeing are only making such a noise about this WTO issue because their product is manifestly inferior to the A330 and cannot sell itself on its own merit alone.

Getting rather long in the tooth now, the old 767.

bumba

15th Sep 2009, 14:15

Beagle

you are probably right, but reading the KC30 MRTT thread they don't look happy either! Problem here and there, late delivery and so on!

So what is going on in the AAR world?
It looks like nobody is really interested in solving the problems!

Report: Defense expert favors split tanker buy (http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/176869.asp)

ORAC

15th Sep 2009, 14:36

SeattlePi: Air Force reportedly won't consider WTO ruling in tanker bid (http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/179138.asp)

The U.S. Air Force will not factor a recent World Trade Organization ruling into its bid process for new aerial refueling tankers, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said on Monday, according to a Reuters report.

Politicians from states, such as Washington, with a large Boeing presence have said the Pentagon should penalize a Northrop-EADS tanker bid based on this month's WTO interim ruling that European governments illegally aided Airbus, an EADS subsidiary.

But Donley noted that the ruling was preliminary and that a European counter-claim about U.S. aid to Boeing was still pending. These are among the points that EADS, Northrop and its congressional allies have been making.

Jig Peter

15th Sep 2009, 14:36

"...and we are changed with them", he finished.
Economic prognosticators are saying that there are huge cancellations pending for the aircraft makers as the downturn goes on biting. So the crowded order books for both will perhaps be about to look desperately empty (again ... "it's one of them cycle things, yer know" ...). So the A330 won't necessarily be facing off against the 767 which is already as good as out of production, but the 777 which could be in dire need of firm orders from a friendly government.
Expect loud acrimony about the WTO "decision" from both sides of the "pond" and not a cool head to talk facts - Europe's way of financing Airbus projects in the past, and in the future, will be given the smoke & mirrors treatment, while few in Europe will be as strong about the shifty ways of the American industry and its very strong desire to be Master of the World ...
That said, both Boeing and Airbus may feel in private, a need to pull their punches, as in a while they may need WTO backing to make life difficult for arising competition from Brazil and China, as well as, perhaps, Russia. Now that will be a cat-fight to end all cat-fights - fine for old war-horses like me who scent the smoke of battles to come ...
"Tempora mutantur" indeed.
:cool:

bumba

15th Sep 2009, 15:06

Why they take so long to deliver planes?
A330 is already flying for more then 15 years and the B767 is even worse (more then 25)? Is that the KC version of the civilian platform is a complete different airplane? If that's so, why being worried about the facing off the civilian plane since the KC (military) version will have his own dedicated time line, maintenance cycle and spare parts (especially if we are dealing with big organizations like USAF, RAF, RAAF, US Navy)?

As I said it looks like nobody is really willing to solve problems but to show how good they are using words instead! WTF

tgun

15th Sep 2009, 15:25

Let's not forget the rather recent Air France Fl 447 crash in the Atlantic Ocean... many unanswered questions related to instrumentation (pitots), air data computers, too much automation, possible pilot error (flying into known CB), or combination of contributing factors that negatively affected the flight that dark, stormy night.

The unknown contributing factors should certainly be considered with respect to the tanker competition (as they relate to the airframe anyway). At the very least, delay the decision until the final report is published.

Too bad that the Pentagon and AF acquisition officers won't even consider a short-term alternative...

DC-10 conversion to KC-10 utilizing mothballed and/or retired DC-10 aircraft. Heckuva lot cheaper than buying new, and the AF has experience with the KC-10 already. Probably pick up 180 or more fully retrofitted (and refitted with latest avionics, engines, etc.,) for less than $30 million each for a total of $5.4 billion.

ORAC

15th Sep 2009, 21:37

Famous Last Words....... :hmm::hmm::hmm:

Schwartz Promises 'Foolproof' Tanker Solicitation (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4278725&c=AME&s=AIR)

U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz vowed Sept. 15 the draft solicitation the Pentagon will release this month seeking bids for a multibillion-dollar tanker aircraft contract will be "foolproof."

Air Force and industry officials during the first two days of the conference have thrown around various timetables for when the Defense Department will release a draft version of a request for proposals. Those vary from next week to the end of this month.

Boeing and a team of EADS and Northrop Grumman are expected to again compete for the contract.

As the crescendo for the service's latest try at replacing its aging KC-135 tankers grows, Schwartz was asked about rumors in defense circles that protests could be filed even before bids are submitted if the competitors feel shortchanged by the coming solicitations.

Schwartz asked with a grin: "Do you think we'd put an RfP on the street that isn't foolproof?"

effects

24th Sep 2009, 13:28

Meanwhile the UAE have theirs sorted,
UAE air force A330 tankers to have Etihad passenger cabin (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/24/332718/uae-air-force-a330-tankers-to-have-etihad-passenger.html)

BEagle

24th Sep 2009, 14:50

Whereas the dismal KC 7-arse-7 doesn't even have windows...:hmm: Presumably they do intend to give their self-loading freight something to sit on though?

Quite a difference between the UAE's A330MRTT Etihad-class seating and the Rendition-class seating proposed for Boeing's ageing Frankentanker design.

D-IFF_ident

24th Sep 2009, 21:40

I always get excited when this thread bounces back to the top - that there might finally have been a final decision.

RFP to be released this coming Thursday (1 Oct 09) I believe?

Flyt3est

25th Sep 2009, 07:47

The pro-Boeing brigade are amusing, especially lawmakers and politicians who seem to have little regard for going very public with HALF a story.

There are two very clear facts to be considered...

1. The WTO Report is an interim report, yes Airbus were found guilty, however, Boeing are under investigation for exactly the same thing. Further analysis tells us that the commercial aircraft which were covered by this ruling do not include A330 MRTT aircraft. People in glass houses?? :rolleyes:

2. Under WTO rules (in particular Article 23), member states cannot take retaliatory action outside the WTO process. If the tanker RFP had language that would not allow NGC/EADS to bid due to this interim report, it in itself would be a violation of WTO. Again, these lawmakers are publicly calling for the USA to breach the WTO.. Smart.. real smart. :ugh:

Personally I do not see any other outcome than a split buy. I'm not saying it's the right move, but I think it's what will happen.

As for the DC / VC 10 suggestion...:ugh:

D-IFF_ident

26th Sep 2009, 00:34

Looks like the Draft RFP has been published:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?tab=documents&tabmode=form&subtab=core&tabid=eaf0755fd560cac1123260d4c2d1ee88

Modern Elmo

26th Sep 2009, 01:14

Quite a difference between the UAE's A330MRTT Etihad-class seating and the Rendition-class seating proposed for Boeing's ageing Frankentanker design.

The USAF sometimes has rendition-class passengers. :E

Finnpog

26th Sep 2009, 07:13

I think from that last comment, we may not see Modern Elmo around these here parts for sometime.

He will be enjoying the "Orange Jumpsuit" weight loss and spititual awakening health spa. He may even get a free tour of some sunnier parts of the world and all without the need for travel documentation. How quaint.
:ooh::E;)

fltlt

29th Sep 2009, 16:21

The Pentagon recently announced its third attempt to find a supplier willing to accept $35 billion (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/25/boeing-vs-airbus-northrop-35-billion-tanker-deal-up-for-grabs/) in exchange for 179 airborne refueling tankers. If BusinessWeek's reporting (http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2009/db20090925_109061.htm) proves prescient, that $35 billion will be divided in some way between the two bidders -- Boeing (BA (http://finance.aol.com/quotes/the-boeing-company/ba/nys)) and EADS' Airbus subsidiary in partnership with Northrop Grumman (NOC (http://finance.aol.com/quotes/northrop-grumman-corporation/noc/nys)).
Before getting into why the contact will likely end up being split, it's worth focusing on the regional politics involved. The Boeing work for the tanker would be done in Washington, Connecticut and Illinois. By contrast, the Airbus/Northrop Grumman tankers would be built in Alabama and South Carolina -- not to mention Europe. In short, the Democratic party wants Boeing to win, and the Republican party favors Airbus/Northrop.
But what would be in the best interest of the Pentagon? A case could be made for divvying up the order based on the fit between different Pentagon requirements and the capabilities of the bidders' different aircraft. Specifically, the Airbus KC-30s would work best for the Pentagon's longer-range assignments across Asia, and the smaller Boeing KC-767s would cost less to operate on shorter refueling jobs.

The Air Force specifications for the tanker put Boeing at a disadvantage. That's because these specs put a heavier emphasis on the tanker's ability to fly long distances and carry more fuel -- thus ruling out Boeing KC-767.
But that's not all. The Air Force wants its tankers to be able to operate on long, 15,000 foot runways at its newer military bases as well as shorter 6,000-foot runways on bases in India and the Philippines. As BusinessWeek points out, this would again put Boeing at a disadvantage because its other possible tanker, a version of its 777 commercial jet, might not meet that spec.
Boeing is playing from behind on two other fronts as well. The Air Force wants early, so-called pre-production, versions of the tanker within 18 months of the July 2010 contract award at a "not-to-exceed" price per tanker. But since Boeing does not know when it will be able to build its KC-777 or how much it will cost, it may not want to comply with the deadline or the fixed-price requirement.
Nevertheless, the Pentagon could wind up back at square one if it awards the contract to one supplier because a single-source deal will almost certainly result in the loser filing a complaint. And that would only further delay the delivery of these badly needed tankers. So to make sure that the third try at awarding that $35 billion is the last, look for the Pentagon to split the bid.

ORAC

2nd Dec 2009, 20:22

Northrop Threatens To Pull Out of KC-X Race (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4399894&c=EUR&s=AIR)

Northrop Grumman has told Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter it will not bid for a multibillion-dollar U.S. Air Force aerial tanker contract unless major changes are made to the rules governing the competition.

Pentagon officials fired back hours later, vowing to resist altering the rules to meet a competitor's wishes and saying they have run the new competition "right down the middle."

Northrop President and CEO Wes Bush, in a Dec. 1 letter to Carter, said if the Pentagon wants the company and its European partner, EADS, to compete, defense officials must make "meaningful changes" to the draft request for proposals (RfP) for the KC-X program. "Absent a responsive set of changes in the final RfP, Northrop Grumman has determined it cannot submit a bid for the KC-X program" Bush wrote in the letter.

A Northrop spokesman said Bush complained to Carter, the military's top weapons buyer, because Air Force tanker buyers failed to respond to Northrop's concerns that the draft RfP was stacked in favor of Northrop's rival, Boeing. "It is Northrop's expectation that DoD will modify" the RfP, said company spokesman Randy Belote. A final RfP was expected by Nov. 30, but has not yet been issued.

The Air Force is expected to award a contract to Boeing or Northrop next summer for 179 planes. The contract could be worth $35 billion.

In a Nov. 4 letter, Bush asked that Northrop's list of concerns - which already have been transmitted to the Pentagon - be addressed in a revamped draft RfP. The Air Force replied that the department has informed Northrop that it is sticking with the original draft.

Bush said the company is concerned that the evaluation criteria outlined in the draft RfP give a "clear preference" to a smaller plane with "limited multirole capability." The Northrop-EADS KC-330 is larger than Boeing's expected entrant, the KC-767. The former also offers more cargo- and passenger-hauling capacity. The Air Force's solicitation - written along with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) - also would place on Northrop, Bush told Carter, "contractual and financial burdens ... that we simply cannot accept."

"This second draft RfP is fundamentally different from what the Air Force said it wanted and needed 18 months ago," Belote said. "The requirement has not changed, but what the Air Force is asking for has changed fundamentally. How did that happen?"

In a statement issued several hours later, the Pentagon said it "regrets that Northrop Grumman and Airbus have taken themselves out of the tanker competition and hope they will return when the final RfP is issued." EADS is the parent company of Airbus.

The DoD statement reiterated defense officials administration-bridging desire for a true competition, but added the Pentagon and Air Force "cannot compel the two airplane makers to compete." DoD said both Northrop-EADS and Boeing have suggested RfP changes "that would favor their offering," but added the department "will not change the war fighter requirements for the tanker to give advantage to either competitor."

The statement repeats Obama administration officials' months-old claim that they have orchestrated this latest attempt at buying new tankers "right down the middle." DoD said a final RfP likely will be released in January.

Northrop-EADS was expected to again compete against Boeing to build new flying gas stations are slated to replace the military's aging KC-135 tankers.

The Bush administration in late February 2008 picked the Northrop-EADS plane over the favored Boeing aircraft, a contract award the latter quickly protested. The contract award was axed that June when the Government Accountability Office determined the Air Force-run competition was flawed. That followed an embarrassing failed attempt earlier this decade to lease KC-767s from Boeing.

Many defense experts, because of that scandal, have stressed the importance of two competitors squaring off for the massive contract. A sole-source contract award could be politically damaging to the military and the White House, experts said. Northrop appears ready to take advantage of this. In the Dec. 1 letter, Bush tells the DoD acquisition chief that Northrop brass "are aware of how important it is to the credibility of the ultimate KC-X tanker award that it be arrived at competitively."

The threat to pull out of the KC-X race will surely be seen by many in the global defense community as an attempt to force OSD and the Air Force into altering the rules and evaluation criteria spelled out in the draft RfP. Bush added that Northrop officials will soon begin notifying its 200 KC-330 supplier firms that the Northrop-EADS team will not compete for the U.S. Air Force contract.

Bush's letter leaves the door open for a Northrop-EADS bid: "It is my hope that the department will modify its approach to this procurement in a way that will enable us to offer our product for your consideration."

busdriver02

3rd Dec 2009, 00:31

Politics, politics, politics.

Flyt3est

3rd Dec 2009, 08:55

FLTlt

The Air Force specifications for the tanker put Boeing at a disadvantage Have you read the RFP?? It is written in such a way that there is no recognition of extra capability. It is price only. There are 373 mandatory requirements, so the toilet is just as important as the refuelling boom. The RFP is heavily tilted in favour of Boeing. Both planes have the same level of "Built in the USA" items.

As for Airbus withdrawal, Boeing did the same thing last time around.:ugh:

dangermouse

3rd Dec 2009, 12:14

the 'Buy American' lobby will guarantee Boeing will win regardless so why should Airbus spend their money on fighting a lost cause.

Hopefully the Pentagon will learn a lesson when Boeing (as the sole available supplier) will now be able to charge an outrageous amount per aircraft (ain't a monopoly wonderful)

A free and fair market is perfectly fine provided American products always win

DM

ORAC

3rd Dec 2009, 12:25

373 mandatory requirements, some will require changes to one or both aircraft. e.g. the flow rate for the boom will mean Boeing will have to upgrade or replace their current design. All requirements can be met by a KC-135 sized aircraft.

Only if both bids are within 1 percent are any other factors taken into account.

The lowest bid winds.

based on the RFP Northrup/EADS have 0% of winning, so they'd be wasting their money trying.

If that's what the DoD/the Obama administration want, then fine, be up front about it. I can see the Congress (especially McCain) be up in arms about a single source bid, but also see no reason why Northrup show throw money away to provide a pretence of a competion. :hmm:

D-IFF_ident

3rd Dec 2009, 20:11

Wasn't the NG bid was cheaper than the Boeing one last time round? If it's not all about price and it's 'capability' that's getting discussed then do the same as Boeing will - promise to meet all 373 points before you've tested anything, then change the contract AFTER it's been signed, when the product doesn't match the promise!

ORAC

4th Feb 2010, 08:12

George Talbot column: Dark days for Northrop's tanker team (http://blog.al.com/live/2010/02/talbot_column_1.html)

Northrop Grumman Corp. has made a "tentative decision" not to bid on the U.S. Air Force tanker contract, according to a top defense analyst. Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said senior Northrop executives have determined that their KC-30 tanker - a plane that would be assembled in Mobile - can't win under the Air Force's proposed guidelines.

US to go ahead with tanker plane even without Airbus: Gates (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gAFs9mlNmwSYWybSblcLoLOqAeyg)

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon will go ahead with plans for a new tanker aircraft even if Airbus parent EADS withdraws from the competition for the lucrative contract, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday.

The administration hoped that EADS and its partner Northrop Grumman would not follow through on a threat to pull out of the bidding, Gates said. "But we will move forward. We have to have new tankers," he told the House Armed Services Committee.

bumba

4th Feb 2010, 08:24

I'll bet Boeing will deliver the Tankers to the USAF meanwhile the Italian Air Force is still waiting for their plane!:}

fallmonk

4th Feb 2010, 08:49

But since Boeing does not know when it will be able to build its KC-777 or how much it will cost, it may not want to comply with the deadline or the fixed-price requirement.

Is it me or is that not just asking for trouble .letting a company who can't even give you. Ball park figure. a contract ok fair deal things over run but to not give a general price is scarry.

glad rag

4th Feb 2010, 10:12

fallmonk,

Is it me or is that not just asking for trouble .letting a company who can't even give you. Ball park figure. a contract ok fair deal things over run but to not give a general price is scarry.

No, the messiah will stand in front of the teleprompter and ensure everyone understands that

"THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO".

:rolleyes::ugh::ugh::rolleyes:

ORAC

8th Feb 2010, 15:46

AWST (Ares): You've Got to Know When to Hold 'Em (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%3aa4215c85-6b73-4fa4-80f2-fa7dad50d083&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Word emerged today that Alabama GOP Sen. Richard Shelby placed a so-called blanket hold on Obama administration nominees awaiting Senate confirmation. Why? Apparently, a desire to force the Pentagon to alter the final USAF KC-X tanker request for proposals, as Northrop Grumman and EADS want, is one reason.

It's often said - so excuse my abbreviated version - that the Senate works by consensus. Indeed, it really can take just one voting member to bring everything to a halt. Historians and pundits like to call the Senate, where members are elected every six years, the cooling saucer to the boiling cup of passions emerging from the House of Representatives, where the whole chamber stands for public judgment every other year.

Still, as Kenny Rogers said, you've got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them - and here, it seems, the long-time Alabama senator is certainly making a gamble. How will such a blatantly political, bring-home-the-bacon maneuver play when Congress is at record low confidence levels with the U.S. public?

"While by all accounts a Northrop Grumman contract would create significant numbers of jobs in his home state, Shelby's initiative is also a move to secure funding for a company that has long funded him," note watchdogs at the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity.

We'll see, but I do want to note that Boeing and its congressional boosters - I'm looking at you, Washington state delegation - might also want to be careful what they ask for. As Lockheed and its recent Joint Strike Fighter imbroglio proves, winning a massive defense program isn't everything it used to be.