Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid

[ORAC]

Decision expected to be announced in the next 24 hours....

NO WORD ON TANKER WINNER

Mobile will have to wait at least one more day to learn its fate in the U.S. Air Force's aerial refueling tanker competition.

The Air Force made no announcement Tuesday in the contest for one of the biggest and most hotly contested defense deals in years. A Pentagon executive board met Monday to review the Air Force's selection process for the proposed $40 billion, 179-plane tanker contract.

The contest pits Boeing Co. and its KC-767 tanker against a rival team by led Northrop Grumman Corp. and EADS North America, which together are proposing to assemble their KC-30 tankers in a new factory at Mobile's Brookley Field Industrial Complex. Observers have widely predicted the contract is Boeing's to lose. The Chicago-based company built the Air Force's existing fleet of KC-135 tankers and has a powerful team of politicians supporting its bid in Congress.

Northrop's KC-30 assembly plant would create up to 1,500 direct jobs in Mobile paying an average wage of about $1,250 a week. Another 300 jobs would be added by Airbus, which has announced plans to shift production of commercial air freighters to Brookley contingent on winning the tanker contract. The KC-30 tanker is based on a French-made Airbus A330 jet.

Defense analysts said the secrecy surrounding the Air Force's decision was unusual, given the size of the contract and the fact that leaking such details is a political sport in Washington, D.C.

Monday's meeting of the Defense Acquisition Board, which signs off on major weapons buys, was one of the final steps toward a decision. The Air Force is waiting for John Young, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, to sign a memorandum authorizing the service to move ahead with an award. A Pentagon spokeswoman said the memorandum had not been issued as of late Tuesday but gave no further details. Once the document is signed, the Air Force is expected to brief key Congressional leaders and the companies before publicly disclosing its choice.

The announcement could be made as early as today, but not before U.S. financial markets close at 4 p.m., according to the Pentagon. Defense analyst Loren Thompson, who has followed the competition closely, said there was a 60 percent chance the award could be made today.

Lt. Col. Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman, said the service was at pains to prevent a news leak. "We're very conscious of the stakes, so we're keeping this as 'close hold' as we can so as not to jeopardize the process," she said.

Congress killed an earlier $23.5 billion Air Force plan to lease 100 Boeing 767 tankers amid a procurement scandal that sent two former Boeing officials to prison and prompted the resignation of two senior Air Force officials.

The Air Force has sought to keep the current competition as transparent and scandal-free as possible, meeting repeatedly with the rival bidders to explain the strengths and weaknesses of their respective proposals. But defense officials still expect the losing side to protest the award, given its sheer size and a spate of recent decisions faulting the Air Force on other arms programs.

Reuters reported that EADS had already raised "substantial concerns" about the tanker acquisition process and changes in how the KC-30 was being evaluated, citing sources briefed on the discussions. Northrop and EADS declined to comment on the report.

Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley are scheduled to testify about the Air Force budget today before the House Armed Services Committee. They will testify regardless of whether the tanker contract has been awarded, said spokeswoman Lt. Col. Brenda Campbell. "That's not going to change," she said.

[Saintsman]

My bet, a bit of both.

[ORAC]

This is starting to get interesting....

The decision was made on Monday and the announcement set for after the market closed on Wednesday to allow the members of congress to brief their states and let them know the decision first.

The announcement has now been slipped till Friday when the market is shut for the weekend and, after meeting the state's congressional delegation, Washington's state governor has just said this at a press conference....

AeroNews: Washington Guv Raises Possibility Of Legal Action If KC-X Doesn't Go To Boeing

At this writing, Boeing hasn't lost the US Air Force's KC-X contract to provide the service with new tankers just yet -- and many analysts feel a Boeing win over a team comprised of EADS and Northrop Grumman is all-but assured. But that didn't stop the governor of Washington from threatening a possible legal protest if Boeing is denied the contract.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday after a meeting with the state's congressional delegation, Gov. Chris Gregoire said the state could file a congressional inquiry or take another course of action if Boeing isn't awarded the KC-X deal.

A decision from the Air Force was originally said to be coming as soon as Wednesday evening... though officials said Wednesday afternoon not to expect an annoucement until Friday, at the earliest.

Gregoire then stressed she still believes Boeing will come out on top, reports The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "I'm banking on us getting it," she said. "I just think we win if it's done absolutely without politics, based on experience, work force, all of that. So I'm feeling good about this.

"If we don't win, then I think there'll be a lot of questions asked about why in the world would Boeing, with that work force, that expertise, that experience, that history -- how could they not have gotten this?" Gregoire then added, muddying the waters somewhat. "My sense is there'll be a lot of questions raised and then we'll get into the protest.".........

[BEagle]

Elsewhere it's reported:

"Led by Republican Sen. John McCain, Congress in 2004 banned the Air Force from working a lease and purchase deal with Boeing after a federal investigation uncovered improprieties in the highest levels of the Air Force procurement process.

Critics also complained Boeing was awarded the contract without competition and that the deal was a bailout for the 767 program, which was facing slumping sales.

Congress forced the Air Force to start a new bidding plan that would allow Boeing rival Airbus to compete for the contract.

Pentagon officials said the losing company could protest and ask the General Accountability Office to investigate the decision, which would delay the program again."

Presumably that means whichever losing company could protest? Or was that a slip by both the Pentagon and Gregoire, implying that Boeing know that their Frankentanker has already lost?

[0497]

Legacy industrial area vs new southern industries
Democratic northwest vs Republican south

Could get very ugly. The CSAR helicopter program has been held up protests for long time wouldn't be a surprised to see the same.

[aviate1138]

"But that didn't stop the governor of Washington from threatening a possible legal protest if Boeing is denied the contract."

And Boeing isn't being subsidized???? :rolleyes:

[LowObservable]

The Congressional mandate after the original Boeing lease fell apart (a plan concocted by Congress, mind you, as a bail-out for Boeing post 9/11) was simple.

Conduct a free, fair and open competition. Which Boeing wins.

Tankers are not a core business for Northrop Grumman. UAVs are, and I'm calling NG to win BAMS next week and to see a big boost in Fire Scout in the next year or so. NG already has the classified demonstrator for the Next Generation Bomber.

Lockheed Martin, which has a huge plant in Marietta that's starting to look very empty, did not even bother to bid, and the last thing that the US needs is another large-airplane assembly line.

Because McCain got mediaeval on Boeing's rear end over the original lease, too, O-whama-bama would find some way to nail him with the USAF BUYS SURRENDER-MONKEY TANKER JET meme.

I will be utterly smobgacked if this is anything but an all-767 award.

[D-IFF_ident]

IMHO, although there are 5(?) criteria under review, it will come down to this:

If it's capability-based, it's the KC-30

If it's politics-based, it's the KC-767

If it's time (for all of them)-into-service based, it's both.

:confused:

[Lee Norberg]

Yes, it appears that politics probably played a role in the DAB decision for the winner- Boeing or NGC/EADS. With so many jobs at stake in the different constituent states, it's tough for the DOD and USAF to stay un-biased in this winner-take-all competition.

Next week, March 5 the DAB meets on BAMS- another competition decision. Interesting to me since my employer is NGC.

[BEagle]

I understand that the result will be made known after the US stock markets close today, Friday 29 February.

Elsewhere, it was reported yesterday that:

Northrop Grumman stock was trading up 2.49%.
Boeing stock was trading down 0.49%.

Interestingly, the Malaysia Sun has already reported:

US Air Force makes a deal with foreign supplier
Malaysia Sun
Tuesday 26th February, 2008


The U.S. Air Force has made an agreement with EADS, the European aircraft manufacturer, which has been vying against Chicago-based Boeing for the large military contract.

EADS is the winner of a US$40 billion military aircraft contract to supply refuelling aircraft to the airforce.

EADS will supply the USAF with a modified A330 with a larger capacity than the Boeing 767-200 plane which was on offer.

However, I'd take their report with a pinch of salt!

[Stratofreighter]

We'll learn of the outcome in about three hours time...

"PRESS RELEASE -- Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Public Affairs

Release No. 030208
February 29,2008

Tanker Contract Award Announcement


WASHINGTON - Secretary of the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne, and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. Duncan J. McNabb, will announce the KC-X contract award winner in the OSD Press Briefing room 2E579 at 5 p.m. today at the Pentagon. A question and answer session with Ms. Sue C. Payton, Assistant Secretary, Acquisition, and General Arthur J. Lichte, Commander, Air Mobility Command, will follow the announcement."

[GreenKnight121]

I dunno BEagle, the Malaysia Sun is well-known for its sources deep inside the US government, right?

:E

[Lower Hangar]

Just heard on Bloomsburg that the Northrop Grumman/EADS consortium has won the contract to deliver KC 30 to the USAF -as an avid Airbus fan I can only say - yippee

[jwcook]

Northrop Wins Tanker Contract,
Beating Out Rival Boeing

Source:- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120432006746103635.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. broke Boeing Co.'s lock on the market for aerial refueling tankers, winning a $40-billion contract to turn Airbus jets into flying gas stations for U.S. military aircraft, according to a person familiar with the situation.

The unexpected win will likely bolster Los Angeles-based Northrop's standing as a major contender for large programs, while also expanding EADS's foothold in the U.S. defense market.

The Air Force's decision to choose the Northrop-led team is a major setback for Boeing, particularly after Boeing lost out on a $23-billion chance to be the sole supplier of tankers in 2001 after the discovery that a top Boeing official and a former Air Force acquisition official had conducted illegal job negotiations.

Under the contract, the Northrop-led team will build up to 179 tankers based on the Airbus A330 jetliner. The first planes are expected to enter service in 2013, replacing the Air Force's aging fleet of KC-135 tankers, many of which have been in service for more than 40 years. Eventually, the government expects to spend billions more dollars to replace more than 500 tankers.

Given the huge financial stakes and the politics at stake, few in the defense industry expect the decision will stand without protest. Over the last couple of years, protests on high-dollar contracts have been filed with increasing regularity, leading to delays as government officials review every aspect of the deals.

Lockheed Martin Corp. and United Technologies Corp.'s Sikorsky helicopter twice protested the Air Force's November 2006 decision to award Boeing a more than $10-billion contract to build search-and-rescue helicopters. After the Government Accountability Office sustained the protests, the Air Force in October 2007 asked for new bids and a winner is expected this summer.

Blimey!

[Lower Hangar]

I got there first at 2126 - see KC-X thread - but great news - no doubt there will be cries of FOUL from Boeing and Senate/House lobbying - but great news 179 wing sets for UK manufacture- I wonder what engines are being bid PW/GE/RR ????

[jwcook]

Doh.. I had a quick look.. before I posted too..

:)

[turboshaft]

So can the RAF tag on an extra dozen and get a volume discount...?

:E

[BEagle]

Yes, just announced officially that the Airbus/Northrop-Grumman A330-based proposal has won the USAF KC-45A tanker contest.

A good day!

[Lee Norberg]

AviationWeek.com

Reader's Tools

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/aw_images/icon_printer.png Print Article (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/EADS02298.xml&headline=Northrop%20Grumman/EADS%20Win%20USAF%20Tanker%20Award&channel=defense#)
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/aw_images/icon_email.png Email Article (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/EADS02298.xml&headline=Northrop%20Grumman/EADS%20Win%20USAF%20Tanker%20Award&channel=defense#)
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/aw_images/icon_save.png Save Article (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/EADS02298.xml&headline=Northrop%20Grumman/EADS%20Win%20USAF%20Tanker%20Award&channel=defense#)
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/aw_images/comment_icon.gif Make a Comment (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/EADS02298.xml&headline=Northrop%20Grumman/EADS%20Win%20USAF%20Tanker%20Award&channel=defense#Make_a_Comment)


Northrop Grumman/EADS Win USAF Tanker Award


Feb 29, 2008
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/defense_images/Tankers/KCXEADS.jpg By Amy Butler
Northrop Grumman and EADS have won the U.S. Air Force's KC-X tanker award, beating a Boeing-led team for the long-awaited, controversial and delayed decision.
The award, for total buy of 179 tankers, is expected to result in a deal worth tens of billions of dollars and leading to a dozen or more new aircraft for several at a cost of about $3 billion per year.
KC-X is the first iteration of a three-phased approach to replace the Air Force's fleet of 530 KC-135E/Rs and 59 KC-10s. The next tranche to replace the Air Force's larger KC-10 tankers, dubbed KC-Y, is not expected until at least 2020, effectively freezing Boeing out of the tanker market for the foreseeable future.
The decision also seals the fate for Boeing's 767 production line. The far newer A330 design continues to outpace the 767 in commercial orders. Boeing has about four years of work left for its Everett, Wash., production line without more orders. The company was looking to the U.S. Air Force to be the only and final 767 customer in the coming years.
The Northrop/EADS win also indicates the team's controversial tactics proved effective. The team threatened just over a year ago not to submit a proposal, effectively leaving the Air Force is a political quagmire without a true horserace after the former lease arrangement fell apart.
Sole-sourcing the deal to Boeing was not an option after two former executives of the company -- including the former top Air Force official that helped to craft the $30 billion lease while working for the government -- were found guilty of conducting illegal job negotiations. They both wound up serving jail sentences, and the scandal prompted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the current ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and former SASC Chairman John Warner (Va.) to push for a competition to reduce the price and improve the design.
Photo: EADS

[Thelma Viaduct]

Source ????

[Jackonicko]

A GREAT day for the USAF (and for EADS).

I can scarcely believe it.

A triumph for the better tanker, rather than the more politically acceptable solution.

The USAF get a tanker that can offload more fuel, more efficiently, from a towline further from base, and whose balanced field length requirements mean that it can operate at max weight from shorter runways than the 767 could.

If our American chums can see beyond the Airbus being 'French' I think that the air power intelligentsia in the states will soon realise that they've bought themselves a da.m.ned good airplane. (And if it helps it will be badged as a Northrop Grumman bird and will be assembled in Mobile).

The A310 is already flying very successfully in the tanker role, and the Airbus boom is looking very good on the A310 testbed, while the RAAF's A330 tankers will soon be in service. The poor old KC-767 has had a rather less successful start, with numerous teething troubles and severe delays.

That decision must sound the death knell for the KC-767 tanker, however, and while its great news for the USAF, it can only be a devastating blow for the Boeing workforce, who have my sympathies, for what that's worth.

But one hopes that the 767 does get orders as an RC-135 replacement, at least - as well as for the USAF's JSTARS and AWACS replacement requirements.

[Pontius Navigator]

That decision must sound the death knell for the KC-767 tanker

Nah, as the RAF already operates the 707 type they will probably snap up the offer of cutprice 767s :}

[Thelma Viaduct]

"(And if it helps it will be badged as a Northrop Grumman bird and will be assembled in Mobile)"

In a mobile building ????

Is that to confuse terrorists ? :hmm::hmm::hmm:

[Jackonicko]

not mobile - Mobile, Alabama......

[BEagle]

My source was the live broadcast on Bloomberg TV.

Amusingly, some US commentator has just said "Airbus is also involved in the Northrop-Grumman offer".....:hmm:

And a couple of days ago, the Luftwaffe received its first upgraded A310MRTT from EFW at Dresden, flying it back to Köln-Bonn. The first CC-150T Polaris is now being modified to the new standard, with both nations' second aircraft following soon......

Now, about FSTA.......:rolleyes:

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

wonder what engines are being bid PW/GE/RR ????

GE is part of the bid team.

[MightyGem]

BBC article here;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7272129.stm

[Pontius Navigator]

Pious, it's like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it?:}

[MarkD]

The "day" is not over yet, it's almost certainly going to be tied up in appeals by Boeing/State of Washington/Democrats for about a year (both Boeing and PW being located in mainly Dem states, Northrop's bid being mostly Rep states) but that such a decision would be made at all...

I wonder in the back of my mind if Airbus expected to win at all and now are going "sheee-it. Now what?" :D :D :D

[Lower Hangar]

Interview on Bloomsberg referred to a KC-140. Didn't catch the engine but as Pratt was bidding into Boeing it must be either GE or RR

[MarkD]

Boeing's bid was PW powered, Airbus' by GE.
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=126373

[BEagle]

Bloomberg have referred to the KC-40, KC-140 and KC-145.....

Bless 'em.

It's the KC-45A, as far as I'm aware.. With GE engines.

Now, what am I bid for my framed picture (from Boeing some years ago) of a KC-767 refuelling a pair of F-32s....all in RAF markings! Could be a collector's item, one day....

[MarkD]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004251635_apwaairforcetankertops.html

Seattle Times can't tell one twin Airbus from t'other:Boeing has lost a Pentagon contract for 179 air tankers to an Airbus-Northrop Grumman venture.

The Air Force secretary, Michael Wynne, says the newly named KC-45A will replace aging KC-135 tankers and carry cargo, passengers and patients as well as fuel.

The order is worth $40 billion and could lead to more orders as the Air Force replaces its aging fleet of 600 tankers.

Boeing planned to use the 767 airframe for the tanker. Without the Air Force order Boeing may have to shut down the line at the Everett factory. The planes would have been turned into tankers in Wichita.

Northrop-Airbus is using an Airbus A300 plane, to be modified in Alabama.

Boeing had previously landed the Air Force tanker order in 2004 but lost it in an ethics scandal.Boeing might have to shut down the 767 line... that they only kept just far enough open to land KC-767 - expect the push for more 787-3 orders to start tomorrow.

[turboshaft]

Didn't catch the engine but as Pratt was bidding into Boeing it must be either GE or RR
GE CF6-80E1A4B

[giblets]

Wonder how far down the list that leaves the RAF tankers!? :}

[D-IFF_ident]

Outstanding! But I'll be very interested to see if Boeing launch an appeal.

And I'm a fan of the CF6 engines too - great pieces of kit, especially if there isn't one in line with the UAARSI....

So Beags, anyone taken up that job in Spain yet? :}

[Lee Norberg]

AviationWeek.com

[Tonkenna]

Does this mean that if we ever get our backsides into gear and make a decision we will be at the back of a very long que?

Better get a new role of bodge tape out for the old girls on 101 and 216!:rolleyes:

Tonks :hmm:

[D-IFF_ident]

I think the construction of the frames in Mobile should mean that Airtanker still get their frames of the line in the EU, but then again I'm not sure the FSTA frames even have a production line number assigned yet do they? And what you doing up at this time of night Tonks?

[brickhistory]

I'm hoping the USAF actually showed some shrewdness:

McCain has had a stiffie for the USAF ever since the crooked leased tanker deal and has just pilliored every USAF civil and uniformed leader who has appeared before him. Therefore, if he wins the Presidency, the USAF still gets its desparately needed new tankers.

However, should Clinton or Obama win, I'm still betting that the contract is re-let and/or split to keep Boeing in the game.

However, I'm retired as of today! Not my problem anymore.

Good luck to those still in! :ok:

[armchairpilot94116]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23413217

[NWSRG]

Very, very surprised at this one...Boeing surely offered a financially competitive deal after the 'ethics' scandal of a few years ago, and there must be deep misgivings in many US hearts at the thought of so much hardware for the USAF originating in France...what message does this send out to the industrial heartland of the US? With an order this big, the US government has just dealt a serious blow to a US company against a non-US rival. While the A330 based aircraft might be more capable, US jobs, not to mention national pride have just taken a big hit. I'm not one for protectionism generally, but I would have fully understood any government keeping this type of contract internal to the nation. Would France have ordered 767 tankers?

[glad rag]

NWSRG, how out of touch you are.

[0497]

Very, very surprised at this one...Boeing surely offered a financially competitive deal after the 'ethics' scandal of a few years ago, and there must be deep misgivings in many US hearts at the thought of so much hardware for the USAF originating in France...what message does this send out to the industrial heartland of the US? With an order this big, the US government has just dealt a serious blow to a US company against a non-US rival. While the A330 based aircraft might be more capable, US jobs, not to mention national pride have just taken a big hit. I'm not one for protectionism generally, but I would have fully understood any government keeping this type of contract internal to the nation. Would France have ordered 767 tankers?

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

Boeing in the last decade or so has been increasingly outsourcing. On the other hand, Airbus/EADS, has made it known that they want to establish a manufacturing site in the US (to hedge against the USD and largest market). It's essentially a win for the newly industrialising southern states at the expense of the legacy manufacturing heartlands - Toyota, Nissan, BMW, MB, Honda have all established manufacturing plants in the south at the expense of Michigan.

PS: I would've went with the 767, much safer. The Pentagon has other big projects to worry about.

A little politics:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/business/29cnd-tanker.html?hp

.....

The Northrop-EADS bid was a bold one that mixed business and Washington lobbying with trans-Atlantic politics. EADS lined up a politically powerful group of senators from Alabama and Mississippi with promises that much of the tanker would be built in their states.

In Paris, at the annual air shows, Airbus officials and Southern politicians proudly displayed the proposed European tanker offering and made the argument that if the United States wants to sell its weapons to European countries, it should also open its doors to foreign suppliers. Politicking reached the highest levels — even Chancellor Angela Merkel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/angela_merkel/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Germany brought up the tanker bid in a White House meeting with President Bush.

Each side spent millions of dollars to sharpen its proposal, hire lobbyists and former generals to argue their case and wage extensive advertising efforts in Washington and at military gatherings in advance the announcement.

[Out Of Trim]

Now, about FSTA.......


I've had a dream or is it a Nightmare.. FSTA drags on interminably. The RAF are number 230 on the list for the Airbus solution and Gordon and Swiss Des are struck by the thought that BA are retiring some old B-767s as they take delivery of their nice new Dreamliners.

"That's what the RAF flight need for AAR" - Just the job, thinks Gordon, a quick grey paint job and a couple of jerry cans for fuel tanks and a garden hose with a shuttlecock attached. :hmm: :ugh: :eek:

[Thelma Viaduct]

Pontius, not much :ok:

It made me smile for a few seconds anyway. :}

Not half as much as the post above though.

You'd think they'd piggyback this and take full advantage of the spam purchase, I suppose they'll do the opposite and end up paying twice as much for half the capability, smart procurement indeed.

[ribt4t]

I'm a Brit living in Washington state so this is kind of interesting to me. I can see huge political pressure being brought to give the deal to Boeing, but on the other hand there's still a lot of money going into US hands here - GE gets 5B for the engines for a start.

I'm sure Alabama will fight hard to keep the deal too because it means a lot of jobs for them.

If the congress forces the USAF to by Boeing then it doesn't bode well for US defense suppliers trying to sell into EU markets - congress didn't pitch a fit when the UK bought Trident did they ?

[Like This - Do That]

What makes a KC-45 different from a KC-30 / MRTT? Just nomenclature?

[BEagle]

“Once we have reviewed the details behind the award,” Boeing said, “we will make a decision concerning our possible options, keeping in mind at all times the impact to the warfighter and our nation."

"Impact to the warfighter and our nation" - what jingoistic tosh :yuk:. Who has invented this silly 'warfighter' noun?

[ribt4t]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfighter

"Warfighter is a term used by the United States Department of Defense to refer to any member of the US armed forces or a member of any armed forces under the US flag. It is intended to be neutral regarding military service or branch, gender, and service status. It is frequently used in Defense Dept memos or directives which are intended to apply to all services equally."

[BEagle]

So it's Spamspeak for 'serviceman' then? ('Man' as in 'human', before the wimmin complain.....). 'tis rather a silly term as it implies a desire to wage war, rather than to serve the nation. It sounds like some kids' computer game.

Of course it doesn't appear in the Cambridge Dictionary either.

I guess there'll now only be the 4 KC-767s for Japan - which are boom only - plus the 4 for Italy? After a substantial pylon redesign, they were finally able to trail the wing hoses successfully last year, some 5 years after Italy placed its order. Have they demonstrated any wet contacts on the wing hoses yet? I haven't read about any.

[Been Accounting]

MarkD Boeing might have to shut down the 767 line... that they only kept just far enough open to land KC-767 - expect the push for more 787-3 orders to start tomorrow.

What 787-3? (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aJRh_fLi5ZZk&refer=japan)

[Brain Potter]

...Gordon and Swiss Des are struck by the thought that BA are retiring some old B-767s as they take delivery of their nice new Dreamliners.

Don't even joke about this. It would be in the finest traditions of British tanker procurement to foist ex-BA airframes on the RAF in a deal that is more favourable to the seller.

Seriously though, A330 airframes are quickly snapped-up on the commercial market - so what is the MoDs back-up plan should the PFI route be abandoned?

They could do a lot worse than piggy-back this deal. NG/EADS could build us a dozen, identical spec, and we'd eliminate the wasted time and money that comes with trying to procure it ourselves. The only aircraft that we've brought into service on-time, on-budget and on-capability in recent years is the C-17 - and that's because we had to take it in USAF spec.

[Woff1965]

Given how useless Swiss Des is, I think its more likely the RAF will end up with a PFI based on refurbed KC135's.

[0497]

Boeing probably needs the production capacity to fulfill the 787 orders. Might also force them to make the long rumoured replacement for the 737.

[ORAC]

LA Times: ........A source who was briefed on the selection said Northrop won in every major selection criteria category, which probably would make it difficult for Boeing to win an appeal.

And it appears that size did matter.

"I can sum it up in one word: more," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte in explaining why the Air Force choose the Northrop-Airbus entry. "More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more [battle casualties] it can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability."

[0497]

LA Times: ........A source who was briefed on the selection said Northrop won in every major selection criteria category, which probably would make it difficult for Boeing to win an appeal.

And it appears that size did matter.

"I can sum it up in one word: more," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte in explaining why the Air Force choose the Northrop-Airbus entry. "More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more [battle casualties] it can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tanker1mar01,0,1207228.story

[Point0Five]

What makes a KC-45 different from a KC-30 / MRTT? Just nomenclature?

Funny story, the RAAF were sucker-punched into calling the MRTT the KC-30B. The marketing name for the MRTT for the USAF was the KC-30A, and now it is to be known as the KC-45A as its official designation. Why the RAAF didn't just stick with MRTT is beyond me.

[BEagle]

If the MoD would only get a move on with FSTA, I'd be quite content for the RAF to call it Susan if it made them happy!

Now then. 139 aeroplanes for US$40 billion (roughly £20B) = £144M per jet

FSTA is £13B for, what is it, 9 aircraft? 9 X £144M = £1.3B by conventional procurement - so that's £11.7 for everything else over 25-30 years?

Great cost saver, this PFI bolleaux......:mad:

[Lee Norberg]

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/787-3prod.html

[Lee Norberg]

First of all, it's Northrop Grumman- not Northrup Grumman. Maybe a bit picky, but let's spell it right.



http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123088392

[brickhistory]

So it's Spamspeak for 'serviceman' then? ('Man' as in 'human', before the wimmin complain.....). 'tis rather a silly term

Hmm, so the US Department of Defense some four-five years ago starts using an admittedly 'silly' term designed to get all motivated about being engaged in a war when only a small proportion are actually on combat ops and they didn't consult BEagle about it.

I'm shocked and disappointed..................

Of course it doesn't appear in the Cambridge Dictionary either.

Neither did F-4, L-1011, C-17, and soon to be F-35, and yet one could/will find them in the area. Strange?

One wonders about the KC-45/whatever being featured there one day as well.

[FJ2ME]

So, to summarise the USAF is buying 179 of the KC-30 for $40 billion (lets call it £19 billion), thats a price of £106 million per airframe.

We, on the other hand, are paying £13 billion for 9 airframes (AFAIK). Thats a price of £1.44 BILLION each. That means the US is getting their 13.5 times cheaper..! WTF?!! this is an outrage to put it mildly. But the maths reveals further facts...

I know that ours is a 27-year contract, but these numbers mean that if we bought outright a fleet of 9, and replaced them EVERY 3 YEARS FOR 27 YEARS for brand new ones, it would cost circa £8.5 billion. THATS A SAVING OF £4.5 BIILION OVER THE FSTA DEAL!!!!! And thats if we got nothing for the second hand ones... Put another way, we could BUY 122 frames for the price we are paying to lease 9. 122!! WAKE THE F@C% UP MOD!!!

I hope (in vain I know) that the dimwits in MOD read this and finally realise what everyone else realised ages ago; WE ARE BEING RIPPED OFF.

I'm sorry for all the cursing and shouting but this would be funny if it wasn't actually happening... I feel like a pedestrian watching a motorway pile-up unfold....

Off to buy EADS shares now...

[giblets]

Does this mean that the USAF will start putting probes on their F-35A's? Would make sense to allow them simultaneous hook ups.

[Navaleye]

Off to buy EADS shares now

Having worked in US Military procurement, competing vendors have the right to appeal an award. In some cases twice. Boeing of course have nothing to lose by an appeal, EADS has everything.

[0497]

Does this mean that the USAF will start putting probes on their F-35A's? Would make sense to allow them simultaneous hook ups.

Not sure about the specifics but, the B and C models intend to have probes so maybes it's as easy as ticking the right box.

[Jig Peter]

I think there was a "no protest" clause in the original RFP, and if Boeing wants to scream, their lawyers will have to do some sophisticated scrabbling ... After all, the 767's not an "all-American" product either, with bits coming from both Japan & Italy (whence the 767 tankers they're saddled with)In the civil market, the A330 has firmly sat on the 767 anyway - leading Boeing to do the 777, which at least sat on the A340 when it got unlimited ETOPS certification.
In the meantime, Northrop Grumman will have to do some wuick work to get the buildings up & running ... Apparently the scheme is for the sections to be built in Europe as now, then ferried to Mobile for final assembly, Mobile thus replacing Toulouse. Also, all A330 (civil) Freighters will be assembled over there too, which must have been a nice incentive.
F-35 Will use the centre-line FBW "prodder", being to USAF specs...
737 replacement. Quite a few years down the line, as it (and an A320 replacement) will need a totally new power plant to get the reductions in fuel consumption potential customers are wanting. Engine-makers busy in their experimental shops with geard fans and things ...

[mlc]

"The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) invested GBP27.6 million (USD54 million) in gaining advice on private finance initiatives (PFI) in Financial Year 2006/07 (FY06/07), figures released on 25 February have revealed. The information was contained in a written answer from Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Minister for Veterans) Derek Twigg"

I'm sure we're getting our moneys worth!!

[GeeRam]

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) invested GBP27.6 million (USD54 million) in gaining advice on private finance initiatives (PFI) in Financial Year 2006/07 (FY06/07), figures released on 25 February have revealed.

Beggers belief.......:ugh:

[anotherthing]

If American srviceman (and women) are 'Warfighter', does that make GWB a Warmongerer?

[Jig Peter]

Flightglobal reports the price for the first 68 "KC-45As" as $178 millon per aircraft.
There are also reports that the Private bit of the AirTransport consortium can't get suitable terms now that credit has got crunched ... Even if the KC-45/30/MRTT/whatever is UK Gov's preferred choice, it'll be a long time (IMO) before the Veteran Transport/Refueller fleet's modernised ... Sorry Guys ...

[BEagle]

"The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) invested GBP27.6 million (USD54 million) in gaining advice on private finance initiatives (PFI) in Financial Year 2006/07 (FY06/07), figures released on 25 February have revealed."

Here's how to save £26 600 000 from the Defence Budget:

"Dear MoD. PFI - don't go there!

Yours faithfully, BEagle

PS - Please note attached consultancy invoice for £1 000 000!"

[GreenKnight121]

Well, Boeing says "there will be no layoffs, personnel will transfer to other lines and areas", like B-787, ICAV, etc. There might be fewer replacements for retiring/voluntarily-leaving workers, but no layoffs. If Boeing had won the KC-X, they had planned on hiring up to 9,000 more workers over the next few years, however.

Apparently, some sources claim there are enough remaining B-767 orders to keep the line open until ~2012 at the current, reduced production rate.

The real clincher here is the A330 freighter portion of the contract. While some estimates place the domestic content of the KC-767 at ~60%, and ~35-40% for the KC-45A, note that NG will be building at least as many freighter A330s as KC-45As... and 40% of around 400 aircraft is more than 60% of just under 200.

I had not known of the freighter "sweetener" Airbus threw in, that makes a major economic difference.

As for the USAF fighters, all you need is this:
you don't need to plumb the aircraft for the probe... the ARTS fixes this problem nicely--- you just use your normal fuel-transfer system to fill all your tanks.

http://www.sargentfletcher.com/ars.htm

http://www.sargentfletcher.com/co_info_page_images/arts.jpg

http://www.sargentfletcher.com/ars_charact.htm#ARTS%20Table

[Archimedes]

Does:

“Once we have reviewed the details behind the award,” Boeing said, “we will make a decision concerning our possible options, keeping in mind at all times the impact to the warfighter and our nation."

Translate as:

"Given that General Moseley has said he wants the new tankers yesterday, it has been quietly suggested to us that it would be unhelpful and possibly even unpatriotic to make too much of a fuss about this one" ? Or am I being unduly cynical in my old age?

[HalloweenJack]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080301/tts-us-europe-military-aerospace-company-3c8ed92.html


WASHINGTON (AFP) - US lawmakers have reacted angrily after the US military awarded a 35-billion-dollar aircraft (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/airlines.html) deal to Europe (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/european-union.html)'s Northrop Grumman/EADS group, in a major blow to US manufacturers Boeing.





"It's stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America," said Republican Senator Sam Brownback about the Pentagon's decision.
"I'll be calling upon the Secretary of Defense for a full debriefing and expect there will be a protest of the award by Boeing."

and so it begins - the political fall out and law suites - it looks like the USAF will not get what they want so soon.

[Jackonicko]

"I think there was a "no protest" clause in the original RFP, and if Boeing wants to scream, their lawyers will have to do some sophisticated scrabbling ... After all, the 767's not an "all-American" product either, with bits coming from both Japan & Italy (whence the 767 tankers they're saddled with)"

Any more detail/sourcing for that clause, anyone?

[MarkD]

Boeing has been breaking records with the 787 outsource so it's a bit much to wrap themselves in the flag about KC-767. I wonder how the French crews who fly the C-135FR (http://www.airliners.net/photo/France---Air/Boeing-C-135FR-Stratotanker/0810530/M/) feel today, if any of them are reading the comments from western US today about their country?

Those who worry about RAF's place in the queue need not worry - the Rivet Joint deal has provided a clear path to the solution to their tanker worries: why send a replaced KC-135 to the boneyard when you can offload it to the Brits?

Meanwhile, in Washington State (http://www.komotv.com/news/local/16147107.html):Tom Wroblewski, president of Machinists Union District 751, called the Air Force decision ill-considered.

"Airbus does not even currently build a tanker," he said. "It is a paper airplane onlyMaybe Airbus could persuade the Australians to let them do a low fly over Mr Wroblewski's house with EC-330 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Australia---Air/Airbus-A330-203-MRTT/1328555/M/) to show him otherwise. I didn't think the KC-767 as proposed for the competition (with the hybrid bits of -200s and -400s etc.) existed either, just the less capable ones sold to Italy and Japan.

Airbus have been guilty of paper-plane promises (A400M for instance) but Mr Wroblewski (whose unions had their "mission accomplished" banners ready) should remember that:

1. It's better to be a winner or a loser but not a sore loser (adapted from The West Wing)
2. The Machinists might want to organise that factory in Mobile.

February 29 (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004252363_webeverett29.html):Cynthia Cole, president of Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), the white-collar engineering union at Boeing, said she thought company leadership has done everything possible to remove the stigma of past scandals.

"I would hope it had nothing to do with that," she said of today's decision.Uh, maybe it had something to do with this? February 22 (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2004194740_speea220.html): SPEEA President Cynthia Cole said she's advising members to set aside part of their 2007 incentive bonuses the company began to pay Wednesday, as well as a portion of coming paychecks.

"I'm starting my strike fund," she said.

[knowitall]

Boeing has been breaking records with the 787 outsource so it's a bit much to wrap themselves in the flag about KC-767.

it is a bit "pot calling the kettle black" isn't it

here's an article on the subject, seems some 767 assemblies are also made in japan

http://www.custac.buffalo.edu/docs/OccasionalPaper30.pdf


Asigning a nationality to a modern airliner is almost as much of a nonsense as doing the same with a car these days


Your right hand drive VW.............built in South Africa

Porsche Boxter...........Finland

[fdcg27]

Hell has frozen over.
Is there anyone out there, including those at EADS and NG, who actually foresaw this outcome?
Still, early days yet. The Air Force is now in the position of submitting what amounts to a Request to Purchase to Congress. While Boeing may not make any formal protest within the procurement process, nothing stops them from quietly meeting with various folks in Congress.
Should the next president be a Democrat (not unlikely IMHO), and should the next Congress have larger Democratic majorities (likely IMHO), all bets are off.

[D-IFF_ident]

Another thing to consider.... How many KC-135s are there at the moment? 450 is it? Was this contract not for less than 200 frames? Does that not leave space for future procurement, or is the USAF going to reduce its tanker fleet by around 60%? And what of the National Guard et al?

[XV277]

The KC-45 deal is to replace just the remaining KC-135Es - the R model replacement comes later (as does the 'E-10' ISTAR replacement)

Doth the UK PFI deal not cover life-time operating costs, as against the USAF deal is just purchase cost?

[repariit]

I do not really understand how the whole process was run. What I heard on the broadcast announcement here was that it was because it was a bigger and newer airplane.

"The KC-45A is the tanker of the future," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, AMC commander. "It will enable us to carry more fuel and cargo, and allow us the flexibility to refuel any type of receiver on every mission."

If bigger/newer was the major cirterion, why didn't Boeing offer the 777? If bigger/newer was not in the selction criteria, Boeing should get a do-over.

[Jetex Jim]

It's the thin end of the wedge, time to start a thread like this one
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=312926

How did the USA lose the lead in aviation?

[ORAC]

Another thing to consider.... How many KC-135s are there at the moment? 450 is it? Was this contract not for less than 200 frames? Does that not leave space for future procurement, or is the USAF going to reduce its tanker fleet by around 60%? And what of the National Guard et al? This was the KC-X competition to replace the first 200 tankers in the USAF. There will be two further competitions to replace the remaining KC-135s and the KC-10s.

The reason for the 3 competitions was for several reasons. Firstly, they don't need to replace all the fleet now, so can afford to wait to take advantage of new technologies etc. Secondly, they don't need all the tankers to be of the same type; depending on the threat/need in the future they may buy smaller tactical tankers or larger strategic tankers - or both. Thirdly, it keeps the first winner on their toes for price and support since the level of satisfaction with them of the next few years will undoubtedly influence the next buy.

The KC-Y competition be around 2023. Expecting the 767 to be gone, and Boeing's own comment that the 787 is unsuitable for the role (don't ask me why), they are thought to be exploring offering a variant of the X-48 blended wing - lots of room for 2 booms and freight, and mil pax can't complain about no windows, roll rates etc. EADS/NG can offer more KC-45s.

The KC-Z competition is expected around 2033. I won't even guess the requirement or the possible candidates.

[BEagle]

Tom Wroblewski, president of Machinists Union District 751, called the Air Force decision ill-considered.

"Airbus does not even currently build a tanker," he said. "It is a paper airplane only


Well I guess the one I was in on 19 Feb 2008, which refuelled 7 Tornados in Rosy Anchor, must have been made of paper, eh Mr Wroblewski?

Has the 767 made any wet offloads through the pods yet?

Meanwhile the KC-30 has already passed all its aerodynamic flight trials...:ok:

[0497]

Has the 767 made any wet offloads through the pods yet?

Boeing's sales pitch is basically: ''We've been making wet offloads for 50yrs''

[henry crun]

Mr Wroblewski is easy to find at Machinists Union District 751 if anyone wants to email him to tell him he is speaking rubbish.

[HalloweenJack]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but:


http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN2863030520080228

Someone in the USAF changed the competition as apparantly at that stage the A330 was the runaway success - so they wanted it changed in Feb to give the 767 a better chance.

`yeah` for the world of politics.

[D-IFF_ident]

Well the website is easy to find:

http://www.iam751.org/

But I can't find the gentleman's personal email address anywhere on the site; perhaps you could post a link?

[brickhistory]

Uncalled for, gentlemen. As was the vendetta against the ANG A-10 guy. Very poor form.

You'd be up in arms if a mass of US folks started badgering a UK spokesman for something.

What would you expect a union leader to say? "I'm happy my folks will be losing jobs?"


UFB..........................

[BEagle]

Brick,

Whilst it is of course a disappointment to Mr Wroblewski and his union colleagues to learn that Boeing lost, there is no schadenfreude or vindictive campaign exhibited on PPRuNe to merit your comment.

The fact is that Mr Wroblewski is seemingly ignorant of the fact that Airbus has built tankers for the Canada and Germany and is currently building tankers for Australia. Hence the comment regarding making him aware of this.

Work I did some while ago for the multi-national 'Future AAR' group compared the A330, A310 and B767 on similar missions, using information supplied by national reps in response to a set scenario, including aerodrome definitions (10000ft balanced field, sea level, zero wind, ISA) for departure, arrival and alternate. Warning bells began to ring when the US rep asked for a 12000ft runway. We refused. Hence, when the results came in, we found that, under the specified conditions, the B767 was only marginally better (in fuel offload and time-on-task terms) than a 4 x ACT A310. Something like 16 tonnes of the KC-767's 92 tonne fuel load had to be left on the ground because it was limited by field length even under fairly benign requirements! A fact I'd always suspected ever since Boeing had let it slip to me years earlier that "Runway length is something which we think Airbus beats us on".

A (theoretical) 5 x ACT A310 beat the 767 by a couple of tonnes of fuel load, but the outright winner by far was the A330 which could still take-off with 111 tonnes of fuel.

This was an international forum, with impartial views.

It must be gutting for Boeing; however, their own brass shot himself in the foot by earlier ruling out the 7-late-7 as a tanker because it "Didn't have the right configuration" - whatever that was supposed to mean.

Oh, and just for Mr Wroblewski:

EADS Completes Successfully 1st Flight Test phase A330 MRTT Aircraft

News Category: [Defence-Air] (Madrid, February 14, 2008) -- The first A330 MRTT prototype MSN747 has landed today at EADS MTAD facilities in Getafe, Madrid at 12:15h local time after completing Phase 1 of the flight testing that has been primarily devoted to civil certification. EADS MTAD has officially announced the conclusion of a key Australian A330 MRTT programme milestone.

Flight Test Phase 1 has been conducted in just 3 months logging up a total of 63 flights and 202 flight hours.

During this phase, the A330 MRTT has proven to be extremely reliable fulfilling the flight test programme in accordance to the flight test schedule. The A330 MRTT has behaved as expected, showing that the modifications introduced to the MRTT configuration (including refuelling pods and boom) had no significant effect on the aircraft's performance. The flight test programme has met all defined test objectives. The flight test campaign was oriented to analyze the behaviour of the aircraft with regard to the following disciplines: anemometry & clinometry, handling qualities, buffet, flutter, loads, performance, flight controls (new tanker and receiver adapted control laws), new autopilot mode (bank angle) and the antenna re-location.

The results of loads, performance and handling qualities measured during flight test have shown full consistency with the data calculated by design. Also, it has been verified that the aircraft is Buffet-free and Flutter-free in the whole flight envelope until maximum design speed (MD/VD) after the military modification.

During this flight test phase, the full flight envelope has been validated and no limitations or restrictions have been found.

In addition to the above disciplines involved in the civil certification, the following military development tests have also been performed: Hose deployment and stability, proximity flights in receiver mode (A310 Boom demo acting as tanker) and proximity flights in tanker mode (F18 acting as receiver).

The flight control laws that have been successfully tested and will provide the aircraft superior handling qualities characteristics in the new roles of the aircraft as tanker and receiver. To enhance the capabilities of the aircraft an electronic tail bumper has also been incorporated to minimize the possibility of a tail-strike at take-off.

The Flight Test Phase 1 has been conducted at Getafe and Toulouse depending on the requirements of the flight test program, involving EADS MTAD and Airbus Flight Test organizations. In addition, the RAAF crew has also participated in some of the flight test activities.Additionally, the Phase 1 Flight Test Programme has also included formal certification flights with the participation of the civil European Authority (EASA).

The reliability of the modified A330 MRTT and its state-of-the-art flight test instrumentation has been outstanding: Not a single flight has been delayed or cancelled due to a technical failure. This is a good example of the excellent capabilities this aircraft will provide to the RAAF

[brickhistory]

BEAgle,

I've no problem with those expressing their displeasure at the sour grapes from Mr. W. I've no problem with those views sent in writing through official channels - to Boeing, to the union office, to editorial pages, etc.

Sending such to his personal e-mail or address, yeah, I think that crosses the line. As in the A-10 instance.

[D-IFF_ident]

Brick, Calm down chap - nobody has said that they are sending emails to the chap at home on a Sunday morning! Henry merely suggested that Mr W was easy to contact via his office, at Machinists Union District 751, and I feel he was suggesting that folks might like to tell him to his face what they are saying about him on this forum. i simply suggested that he is NOT easy to contact via the Machinists Union District 751 website. I'm not sure how you got the impression that there are plans afoot to send a lynch mob round to his gaff while he's reading the Sunday papers, but I think you might be misunderstanding what we are saying.

That said, he is obviously saying exactly what anybody in his professional position would say. He would probably lose his position if he said 'it's a fair cop, Airbus is better than us'.

:hmm:

[brickhistory]

Perhaps you're right.

It's easy to see how

But I can't find the gentleman's personal email address anywhere on the site; perhaps you could post a link?

could be lost in translation.........

[Lazer-Hound]

I do wonder how much the UK posters will be crowing about this EADS win when Airbus closes Filton and moves wing manufacturing to the southern USA.

[LeakyLucy]

Couldn't agree with you more Mr Hound. Ok, here we go, the UK backed the US in the war with Iraq and gets a piece of the billion dollar pie. If they're happy to award the contract to the " or you're against us " crowd, then they aint going to care too much about lil' ol Filton now are they ? So much for loyalty. Boeing should have built a new airframe from the drawing board.

[henry crun]

brick: I agree, my post was open to interpretation.

It is as D-IFF_ident suggests, a suggestion that the gentleman can be advised of his error through the Machinists Union District 751 website.

[West Coast]

Well I guess the one I was in on 19 Feb 2008

Forgive him. He may have been thinking of that C-130 2.0 you champion as well.

I guess its on its wheels last I saw.

[Tester07]

If you are so clueless about the competition, then maybe you deserve to lose. Complacency, perhaps?

[HalloweenJack]

I must laugh im afraid:

www.forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml)
Announcing the deal, EADS said in a statement late Friday it would co-locate the final assembly of the tankers at Mobile, Alabama, 'creating the first new large commercial aircraft assembly facility in the US in over 40 years'.
In reaction, the CFDT union issued a statement saying the decision 'will not be without consequences on an industrial as well as employment level and notably for the Toulouse plant'


Now french unions are complaining as well - i do actually hope that one day , at some point within the next 20 years the US actually gets the new tankers...

[MarkD]

If Airbus had lost the contract, what would have become of SDD-1 and SDD-2 - the former already flying and the latter undergoing final assembly - is there any significant difference between the SDD aircraft and KC-30s for other countries?

Meanwhile, on the campaign trail (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/02/obama-expresses-disappointment-over-air-force-tanker-deal/?mod=googlenews_wsj):Sen. Barack Obama expressed his disappointment Sunday that Northrop Grumann and the parent company of Europe’s Airbus beat out Chicago-based Boeing Co. for a contract worth up to $40 billion for the next generation of U.S. Air Force refueling tankers.

Obama said it was hard for him to believe “that having an American company that has been a traditional source of aeronautic excellence would not have done this job.” He preempted his comments by saying that he had not examined the deal carefully.Sen. Obama must have forgotten that you have to win a state in both the Primary and the General, not just the Primary - even Alabama. But this is the same Senator Obama who doesn't realise that NAFTA as currently negotiated preserves US energy security.

Seriously - this is like Patriots fans complaining that even though the Superbowl is a competition, the Giants were supposed to just show up and look pretty. (As this is the NFL, looking pretty is a relative rather than absolute value)

[BEagle]

Westie, you may well be correct about Mr Wroblewski thinking of the A400M.

If so, he is even less well informed than he indicates....:rolleyes:

The A400M common-standard aircraft does indeed stand on its wheels right now. But should fly mid-2008....

Perhaps even before the Boeing 7-late-7 takes to the skies?

[MarkD]

Beags - I sincerely doubt encouraging people to research the development timelines of A400M vs B787 is going to look good on A400M, even if you build in time wasted on the Sonic Loser. Future International Military Airlifter goes back 26 years...

[BEagle]

Most of the delays to the A400M have been political, not technical.

And it will also have a tanker role, Mr Wroblewski.

It was a shame about the Sonicruiser, I thought Boeing had managed to discover some new aerodynamic technique which would have permitted economic cruise in the very high subsonic regime. Had they actually done so, the Sonicruiser would have been a world-beater!

[West Coast]

Perhaps even before the Boeing 7-late-7 takes to the skies?

Mark beat me to it.

Apples to oranges. If however you want to pound a square peg through a round hole, the 787 trumps your turboprop.

[BEagle]

I couldn't agree more, Westie.

Abject failure to deliver a pretty straightforward airliner on time does indeed trump political delays to an advanced high speed military airlifter.

I really wish that Boeing had been able to develop the Sonicruiser - it would have been truly revolutionary.

[ferrydude]

If the 787 is straightforward and the A400M advanced then I reckon the
Iranian nuclear program is peaceful.:eek:

[Jackonicko]

SDD1 is flying?

Really?

If so that puts it a long way ahead of the

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/01/24/2004143243.jpg

Frankentanker

[MarkD]

SDD-1 (or D-1) flew on September 25 last (http://eadstanker.com/2007/issue_26.htm).

UPDATE: For Lazer-Hound:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7272475.stm
More jobs are expected to be created at Airbus's Flintshire plant after the company struck a £20bn contract with the US Air Force.

The future of the plant's current 7,400 staff was secured with the announcement that they will build wings for a fleet of 179 in-flight refuelling aircraft.

Brian Fleet, a former Broughton apprentice who is now an Airbus senior vice president, said it was "highly probable" more staff would be needed.

[High_lander]

So, we've got a name for the FSTA (in the lines of Dave etc)!

Susan- as suggested earlier on in the topic.


There is alot of patriotic nonsense coming from the Americans on other forums- airliners for example. But the fact that the NG/EADS won 4 out of 5, then DREW on the 5th is quite difficult to compete with!

[jwcook]

So, we've got a name for the FSTA (in the lines of Dave etc)!

Susan- as suggested earlier on in the topic.


There is alot of patriotic nonsense coming from the Americans on other forums- airliners for example. But the fact that the NG/EADS won 4 out of 5, then DREW on the 5th is quite difficult to compete with!

Hmmm in keeping with the US reaction.. how about 'Tokyo Rose'...

[West Coast]

Do they have the wings on the C130 turboprop replacement yet?

[TheInquisitor]

The reason Boing (sic) lost the contract is simple - they thought it was a shoe-in until a few years ago, when they had their eyes wiped for dodgy practices - hence they didn't bother doing any serious development work until it was too late.

However, it concerns me somewhat that Scarebus haven't yet got any proven track record with Mil types in service. And Scarebus's dodgy practices are even worse than Boing's.

I think this is a case of 'Boeing caught napping', rather that 'Airbus products proven superior', TBH.

The whinging lefties were inevitable, whoever won - it's just America's lefties bleating instead of the Frogs for a change!

[0497]

Sen. Obama must have forgotten that you have to win a state in both the Primary and the General, not just the Primary - even Alabama.

The Democratic candidates can afford to lose Alabama but, they can't lose Ohio (a rust belt state) - Ohio primary is coming up. This might come back to hurt McCain in the Presidential election.

Note: The Democratic Party is traditional unionist party. Washington State (Beoing hometown) is a Democratic stronghold. Obama is from Illinois. Don't be surprised if the deal is overturned/sweetner deals offerred if the Democrats win the Presidency.

[BEagle]

Westie, the aircraft has more than just the wings fitted now!

From http://www.airbusmilitary.com/press.html :

"As an auspicious start to the New Year in Seville the first complete A400M airframe was removed from the assembly jigs at the FAL on January 2nd and towed to an adjacent development hangar, where work will commence on strain gauge calibration tests prior to further preparation for systems ground tests."

The first aircraft is due to fly in July2008.

Some 'Hercules'!:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/A400M2.jpg

[Clockwork Mouse]

Just in time for the Norman invasion then. Harold will be pleased!

[jwcook]

no no no he means 8 mins past ten...

I love the look of it.. those Huds are huge.

Cheers

[BEagle]

Duly edited......thanks!

[Art Field]

False Alarm

Just for one moment I was delighted to pull out the Daily Telegraph business supplement and saw a big picture of an A330 with FSTA emblazoned all over it, at last!!!!. Sadly it was an artists drawing being used to illustrate the USAF deal. Ah Well, dream on.

[Brian Abraham]

From Avweb today

Air Force To Fly Airbus
Anyone who thought the drawn-out battle to choose the new generation Air Force tanker aircraft ended with the Pentagon’s decision Friday to go with the Northrop-Grumman/EADS consortium likely has another think coming. "This won't be pretty," Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., told The Seattle Times Saturday. "There will be a firestorm of criticism on Capitol Hill,” Dicks, whose Seattle-area district depends heavily on Boeing for its economic well-being, warned. Although the loss of the $40 billion deal is not expected to result in any job losses at Boeing, the contract would have created up to 8,000 additional jobs and kept the 767 assembly line going well beyond 2012 when the last commercial 767 is finished. It’s an election year in which the economy is in trouble and protectionist sentiments have been expressed by both Democratic presidential nomination contenders. Not only that, the leading Republican contender is remembered as the politician that killed the original contract awarded to Boeing in 2003, so it would seem the tanker issue will have pretty long legs.

"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., whose district includes Boeing’s Wichita plant. Leading Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have both been trumpeting protectionist policies of late but it’s Republican front-runner John McCain who might face the most scrutiny. It was pressure from McCain that scotched a 2003 award to Boeing for a total of 100 767-based tankers. McCain alleged favoritism in the bidding process and the Pentagon rescinded the contract in 2004. Now there are allegations the most recent bidding process was changed to favor the Airbus/Northrop Grumman bid. In the end, it may well be the U.S.-first sentiment that dominates the chorus of discontent. "Obviously, Congress is going to react to the American public," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said. "You can put an American sticker on a plane and call it American, but that doesn't make it American-made." Which aircraft will do the best job for the best price does not seem to figure into the current debate.

French Jobs Lost By Winning Tanker Contract
Not everyone associated with the EADS/Northrop-Grumman victory in the Air Force tanker contract is celebrating. The union representing workers at EADS Toulouse factories claims the deal will cost French jobs because of the consortium’s commitment to build an assembly plant for the tankers in Mobile, Ala. In 2006, EADS agreed to build a plant in China to win contracts there and the CFDT union claims that’s chipping away at the French workforce. British unions are hailing the contract saying it will secure thousands of jobs in plants that build major structures like wings. And, of course, Mobile couldn’t be happier about the decision. Civic and state officials are portraying the contract award as turning point for the social and economic structure of the area. "The opportunities for decades to come are just so real and so big. It's really kinda hard to put it all in perspective," Congressman Jo Bonne told WKRG. The first priority is upgrading Brookley Field to accommodate the factory and the traffic it will generate.

[Jig Peter]

There's a point about the KC-46A line transfer to Mobile ... Airbus will need space for the A350 FAL, but if A330 Freighter final assembly goes to Mobile as promised, the A330/A340 FAL building would be a good and economical place to assemble the A350. So French jobs won't be at stake either ...
:O

[NWSRG]

Boeing have today requested an immediate debrief from the USAF...check the Boeing website for their full statement. Sounds like they are starting to question the procurement process.

The USAF have said that the KC330 gave them 'more' in many areas. But if the KC767 met the RFP requirements, and did it at a lower cost (which seems likely) then if the RFP did not give credit for capability beyond the basic requirements, Boeing may have grounds to appeal.

Or put it another way...when the whole tanker issue began, Boeing were already working on the 777F. If any of the RFPs suggested that 'more' would give you bonus points, then why would they not have offered a KC777?

...I think this one has a little way to run yet...

[glad rag]

You can argue the toss either way TBH, but if the decision is overturned it may well have extremely serious consequences for US standing in Europe, quite correctly IMO.
The French media here are downplaying this decision quite significantly (or else have been caught on the hop like everyone else)

[Jackonicko]

NWSRG,

The KC-767 did not meet all the requirements in the RFP - it can't take off with full fuel from the required runway length.

The only category in which the 767 'equalled' the KC-30 was risk (a joke when you realise that the KC-30 is already flying, whereas the bizarre hybrid 767-200/300/400 chosen for KC-X hasn't, and when you look at the JASDF and AMI 767 programmes).

The KC-30 beat the 767 on cost (and everything else).

The only leg that Boeing have to stand on is the strategic imperative of using a USAF order to keep Boeing healthy and wealthy - exactly the kind of subsidy that the yanks affect to despise! They offered an inferior tanker and lost.

Moreover, the A330 is a better basis for a tanker because it combines better field performance than the KC-767 (which can't operate with full fuel from such irrelevant tanker airfields as Mildenhall or Brize, for example) with a higher fuel load.

The 777 would offer even more fuel and even more cargo capacity, of course, but its field performance (the 767's Achilles heel) is even poorer than the 767's. It was thus a non-starter as a tanker.

The cost, composites, demand for and bendy wings of the 787 ruled it out of contention, the 737 was too small, and the 777 was too big, and couldn't use real world tanker bases.

The 767 was the only game in town for Boeing, and while it might be right for the RC-135, E-3 and E-8 replacement requirements, the A330 makes a superior tanker, and is better proven in the tanker role.

[BEagle]

But if the KC767 met the RFP requirements, and did it at a lower cost (which seems likely) then if the RFP did not give credit for capability beyond the basic requirements, Boeing may have grounds to appeal.



One of the main reasons, I understand, for the failure of TTSC to be selected as the FSTA preferred bidder.

A naive misunderstanding of the fact that the military customer will always want more, even if it isn't in the RFP document.

By the way, here are the assessments made some years ago by an independent body:

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.

Answers were:

KC-767: 50000 kg
A310MRTT: 45500 kg
A330MRTT: 82500 kgGame, set and match, I feel......

[fdcg27]

Any decision involving the expenditure of public funds is a political decision, in the literal sense.
While the Air Force may be saying "I want this one!", there are broader considerations, which will be fully aired over the coming months.
The question isn't so much which aircraft the Air Force feels is "best", but rather which one would be best for our country overall.
Either plane would perform the tanker role adequately. The question has to be which plane delivers the greatest value to our country as a whole, which in turn requires that we think of things like jobs, both now and in the future. I personally think that the NG/EADS proposal might actually generate more jobs for the US in the long term than would the adoption of one last iteration of the 767, but you can rest assured that all factors will be thoroughly reviewed prior to the actual award of a contract.
As a Boeing shareholder, I have a natural preference, but the tanker contract would probably launch decades of Airbus manufacturing in the US, bringing many good jobs to our country.
Finally, the Euros should understand that the advent of significant numbers of Americans earning paychecks that say "Airbus" will end government sponsorship of any trade dispute initiated by Boeing.

[TheInquisitor]

"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers,"

...then Boeing shoud've invested in building a decent tanker, rather than thinking it was 'in the bag'.

Even the 767 platform with more powerful engines would have upped their numbers somewhat and put them in contention - not beyond the will of man to achieve, and probably without a major redesign as well. This has happened because Boeing have rested on their laurels - now they will be forced to up their game, which can only be good for aviation in general.

[Jackonicko]

"Either plane would perform the tanker role adequately."

Adequately in not being able to take off from Mildenhall with full fuel, you mean?

The adequacy of the KC-767 would probably challenged by the poor bastards who have to fly those delivered to the two customers.

[fdcg27]

I am guessing that it will be at least as adequate as what it would be replacing.

[Lobo3]

Has anyone taken a good look at the different WINGS these planes are using? Believe me there is a difference!

[Jackonicko]

But the adequacy of those aircraft is such that they need replacing. "More adequate than a worn out Italian 707" doesn't sound like much of a slogan for the KC-767 to me, and nor does "better than not having a tanker at all" in the Japanese case.

[ORAC]

DefenseNews: Young Fires Back At Critics of Tanker Decision

Four days after the U.S. Air Force handed a $40 billion contract for aerial tankers to Northrop Grumman and EADS, the Pentagon's acquisition chief fired back at critics of the controversial deal. Additionally, John Young warned the ongoing backlash against the controversial deal should not drive jilted lawmakers to place restrictions on buying military items from foreign suppliers.

"The tanker competition [and decision] is going to be put under true stage lights and scrutinized," Young said during a March 4 roundtable with reporters at the Pentagon. "I believe the Air Force can explain how they made their decision. And I believe the program was conducted in accordance with the law - statutory law and provisions guide how we do competitions."

Pentagon acquisition officials "cannot punish [a competitor] for overachieving as long as they do so within my cost parameters," Young said.

And it appears the Northrop-Airbus team's A-30 tanker did just that, according to defense analysts. In a brief issued March 3 (http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1234.shtml) that summarized the key performance parameters the service used to pick the winner, Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said the transatlantic offering won in a rout...............

[MarkD]

KC-30 boom (attached to A310) refuels Portuguese F-16
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3407090&c=EUR&s=TOP

Meanwhile, as the Democrats led by Clinton, Obama and Pelosi berate them sneaky furriners and the Republicans back a French-backed concern (the world is truly on its head) McCain (who says he hasn't studied the reasoning enough to say if it's a fair go) says:"I've never believed that defense programs, that the major reason for them should be to create jobs," said McCain. "I've always felt that the best thing to do is to create the best weapons system we can at minimum cost to taxpayers."
He'd never be elected Prime Minister of the UK with that kind of attitude. If he talked that way in Canada the collective shudder in Quebec at the thought of disappearing offset pork would register on seismographs.

EDIT: SDD-1 is line no. 871
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Airbus-A330-203/1309112

[Jetex Jim]

He'd never be elected Prime Minister of the UK with that kind of attitude

I'd be surprised if the majority of the electorate make a decision based on such subleties as this. The place of jobs in defence procurement is of big interest to the few thousands left working in the industry, to be sure - but that's not many votes.

The industry, itself though, has huge influence and lobby powers, focussed on the media and aimed and influencing the decision makers.

[fdcg27]

Jacko, I posted that with tongue in cheek.
I posted previously that the A330 deal might be a better one overall.
The Air Force gets the plane it wants, and the US gains what would probably be a long term Airbus plant complex, resulting in thousands of well paid jobs.
The tanker would be only the beginning of Airbus manufacturing in the US, and would give EADS the political cover it needs to take a step it probably wants to take in any event.

[airsound]

Strange they haven't mentioned KC-30/45 so far. But they'd like us to know about this
Boeing Delivers 2nd KC-767 Tanker to Japan

ST. LOUIS, March 05, 2008 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] Monday delivered the second Japan KC-767 Tanker to the Itochu Corp. for Japan's Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF), two weeks after delivering the first refueling aircraft to the Japanese military.

"We are thrilled to have followed our first delivery on Feb. 19 with this second KC-767 Tanker delivery on schedule," said George Hildebrand, Boeing KC-767 Japan program manager. "This second tanker will add significantly to Japan's military refueling capabilities."

The KC-767 made the 13-hour non-stop flight to Gifu, Japan, near Nagoya, from Wichita, Kan., near Boeing's tanker modification center. Itochu will deliver the KC-767 Tanker to the Japan Ministry of Defense following in-country acceptance processes.

Japan has ordered four convertible freighter 767s, providing flexibility in carrying cargo or passengers while maintaining its primary role as an aerial refueling tanker. It features Boeing's advanced aerial refueling boom and Remote Aerial Refueling Operator (RARO II) system. Boeing is scheduled to deliver the remaining two refueling aircraft in 2009 and 2010.

Boeing also is building four tankers for Italy with delivery of the first aircraft planned in 2008. Since the 1930s, Boeing has built and delivered more than 2,000 tankers that feature the world's most advanced aerial refueling method with the highest fuel transfer rate available.

airsound

[Jerry B.]

Guys,

The excellent, special report in the link below will put a lot about the tanker competition into perspective - ......especially if read in hindsight.

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn090407.pdf

Cheers,

Jerry B.

[Jerry B.]

The link below makes interesting reading ......... especially with hindsight.

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn090407.pdf

[Jig Peter]

Lazer Hound - even if Filton is sold to GKN, the wings themselves will continue to be built at Broughton (ex- Hawarden/Chester etc), with what Filton does at the moment going there also ...
So no worries for Welsh jobs from this one ...:ok:
Jig Peter

[HalloweenJack]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/07/222107/boeing-serious-consideration-of-kc-x-protest-after-usaf-debrief.html

The statement follows a debriefing today, 7 March, by the US Air Force on why Boeing lost the contract. Boeing requested an immediate briefing after the 29 February announcement that Northrop and EADS had won the $35 billion contract to produce 179 KC-45A tankers.
"While we are grateful for the timely briefing, we left the room with significant concerns about the process in several areas, including programme requirements related to capabilities, cost and risk; evaluation of the bids; and the ultimate decision," says Mark McGraw, Boeing vice-president and KC-767 programme manager.
"What is clear not is that reports the the Airbus offering won by a wide marging could not be more inaccurate," he says in a statement.
"Our plan now is to work through the weekend to come to a decision on our course of action early next week," McGraw says, emphasising Boeing "never takes lightly protests of our customers' decisions."

need to read between the lines of the politico jargan speak im afraid - but from the words used - boeing will file a protest.
the parts in bold are mine: capabilites , this im afraid is utter crap - boeing knew what the RFP was and even when it was changed in feb to more avour the boeing they still lost, cost and risk , both aricraft are flying and in service - except frankentanker , the boeing bid hasn`t been built yet(freighter ,200,300 and 400 parts) evaluation of the bids and ultimate decision - please boeing cry me a river , you lost and now they critisise it.

[pr00ne]

Jig Peter,

Wrong. Airbus is selling Filton to someone who will do then run it to deliver the exact same production capacity as exists there now. They are doing the exact same thing with a number of French and German plants. If GKN buy Filton (and maybe the other plants) then there will be no transfer of staff or manufacturing to Broughton.

[Jig Peter]

Yes, *****e, you're right, I did phrase my post badly - even if/when Filton is sold, the design and build work-flow will be just the same, and the EADS accounting will look lots better ...
regards,
Jig Peter
:sad:

[BOEING777X]

Some more insight into the recent USAF tanker selection here (http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2008/03/10/tanker-travails/). :)

[0497]

Good article, sum up what we've been saying - Boeing a little arrogant about the procurement. Didn't offer anything distinctive, and treated the AF with contempt. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business/worldbusiness/10tanker.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

My favourite part though: (who do you think he's talking about? the UK? France? Japan? I think France)

....

Experts warned that excluding foreign competitors could prompt other countries to take similar steps against American defense manufacturers and that choosing inferior domestic products would only put military service members at risk. That tendency, acted on in other countries, has already created what one analyst, Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group, called “a hideous mix of higher costs and reduced combat effectiveness.”

.....

[knowitall]

"Some more insight into the recent USAF tanker selection here."

er no a bunch of protectionist BS, nice free add for you website btw

this is probably the best editorial ive read on this subject so far

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/06/AR2008030603752.html

[BOEING777X]

Respected Sir, its an op-ed piece that I felt appropriate to display to the readership, on this highly controversial issue. :ok:

[giblets]

Thanks for the great information on the offload capabilities of the various aircraft, but now they have lost the contract, Boeing are claiming they could have included the KC777, clearly this is heavier, and even worse field performance, but are there any offload figures for it?
Cheers

[Mr Quite Happy]

I am quite sure that the most important thing about this deal, more than the 40bn USD is this:


Finally, the Euros should understand that the advent of significant numbers of Americans earning paychecks that say "Airbus" will end government sponsorship of any trade dispute initiated by Boeing.


As your friendly stockbroker, I advise buying EADS or Northrup G' because I see a merger in the making. A US/Euro airplane manufacturer will open the US market to the europeans whilst allowing cost centres to be shifted to the land of the dollar.

[Graybeard]

I'm appalled at the lack of imagination shown by all concerned. Boeing and Scarebus management are sleaze and slime, not deserving of such a plum at the expense of taxpayers. There is a third choice, however.

The Pentagon loves big, expensive, drawn out programs, and they basically have a blank check from the poor taxpayers for which the military is a sacred cow. The USAF needs a reality check, and the tanker is a good place to start.

As evidenced by the age of the current USAF tanker fleet, they get very few hours per year, probably on the order of 400, while the 767 and A330 are flying about 4,000 hours per year in commercial passenger service, and quite reliably.

The USAF should be buying used 767s and DC10-30s with, say 50,000 hours on the airframes, and having them converted to tankers. 90-99% of the design is done and flying already, and the data is owned by the USAF, I'm sure.

These veteran airliners with many hours and cycles of life left would do the job at a tiny fraction of the cost of any new airframe. The KC-10A fleet is 25 years old, and the last I heard, has always been the most reliable airplane in the USAF inventory. The 767 is even more reliable.

Boeing could bid on the rework, as could any number of MROs across the US, and even around the world.

Lest you think this is impractical, a subsidiary of Omni Air is converting its second DC-10 to a fire fighting tanker. The entire development of the first one cost only $15 Million of private funds, and it was unprecedented. And Evergreen Intl has slipped a 25,000 gallon tank into a 747-100 freighter for aerial fire fighting. Their budget was in the same ballpark.

Buying up used 767s, DC-10s and even Airbusses would prop up the used airliner market, helping sales of new ones, and saving taxpayers a bundle of $Billions.

GB

[airsound]

Here is Boeing's news release detailing their protests.

In the interests of saving bandspace, I've deleted my earlier post (it was #150) in which they merely announced that they were to protest
Boeing Protests U.S. Air Force Tanker Contract Award
ST. LOUIS, March 11, 2008 --

Citing irregularities with the process of the competition and the evaluation of the competitors' bids, The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has filed a formal protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), asking the agency to review the decision by the U.S. Air Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) to replace aerial refueling tankers.

"Our analysis of the data presented by the Air Force shows that this competition was seriously flawed and resulted in the selection of the wrong airplane for the warfighter," said Mark McGraw, vice president and program manager, Boeing Tanker Programs. "We have fundamental concerns with the Air Force's evaluation, and we are exercising our right under the process for a GAO review of the decision to ensure that the process by which America's next refueling tanker is selected is fair and results in the best choice for the U.S. warfighters and taxpayers."

Following a thorough analysis of data presented at a March 7 debriefing on the decision, Boeing concluded that what began as an effort by the Air Force to run a fair, open and transparent competition evolved into a process replete with irregularities. These irregularities placed Boeing at a competitive disadvantage throughout this competition and even penalized Boeing for offering a commercial-derivative airplane with lower costs and risks and greater protection for troops.

"It is clear that the original mission for these tankers -- that is, a medium-sized tanker where cargo and passenger transport was a secondary consideration -- became lost in the process, and the Air Force ended up with an oversized tanker," McGraw said. "As the requirements were changed to accommodate the bigger, less capable Airbus plane, evaluators arbitrarily discounted the significant strengths of the KC-767, compromising on operational capabilities, including the ability to refuel a more versatile array of aircraft such as the V-22 and even the survivability of the tanker during the most dangerous missions it will encounter."

Boeing is asking the GAO to examine several factors in the competition that were fundamentally flawed:

- The contract award and subsequent reports ignore the fact that in reality Boeing and the Northrop/EADS team were assigned identical ratings across all five evaluation factors: 1) Mission Capability, 2) Risk, 3) Past Performance, 4) Cost/Price and 5) Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment. Indeed, an objective review of the data as measured against the Request for Proposals shows that Boeing had the better offering in terms of Most Probable Life Cycle Costs, lower risk and better capability.

- Flaws in this procurement process resulted in a significant gap between the aircraft the Air Force originally set out to procure -- a medium-sized tanker to replace the KC-135, as stated in the RFP -- and the much larger Airbus A330-based tanker it ultimately selected. It is clear that frequent and often unstated changes during the course of the competition -- including manipulation of evaluation criteria and application of unstated and unsupported priorities among the key system requirements -- resulted in selection of an aircraft that was radically different from that sought by the Air Force and inferior to the Boeing 767 tanker offering.

- Because of the way the Air Force treated Boeing's cost/price data, the company was effectively denied its right to compete with a commercial-derivative product, contrary not only to the RFP but also to federal statute and regulation. The Air Force refused to accept Boeing's Federal Acquisition Regulation-compliant cost/price information, developed over 50 years of building commercial aircraft, and instead treated the company's airframe cost/price information as if it were a military-defense product. Not only did this flawed decision deny the government the manufacturing benefits of Boeing's unique in-line production capability, subjecting the Air Force to higher risk, but it also resulted in a distortion of the price at which Boeing actually offered to produce tankers.

- In evaluating Past Performance, the Air Force ignored the fact that Boeing -- with 75 years of success in producing tankers -- is the only company in the world that has produced a commercial-derivative tanker equipped with an operational aerial-refueling boom. Rather than consider recent performance assessments that should have enhanced Boeing's position, the Air Force focused on relatively insignificant details on "somewhat relevant" Northrop/EADS programs to the disadvantage of Boeing's experience.

"Boeing offered an aircraft that provided the best value and performance for the stated mission at the lowest risk and lowest life cycle cost," said McGraw. "We did bring our A-game to this competition. Regrettably, irregularities in the process resulted in an inconsistent and prejudicial application of procurement practices and the selection of a higher-risk, higher-cost airplane that's less suitable for the mission as defined by the Air Force's own Request for Proposal. We are only asking that the rules of fair competition be followed."

airsound

[knowitall]

"Lest you think this is impractical,"

i do

"a subsidiary of Omni Air is converting its second DC-10 to a fire fighting tanker."

thats 2 not 179

if you could find a fleet of 179 identical (or nearly identical) aircraft than it might be a viable option

"As evidenced by the age of the current USAF tanker fleet, they get very few hours per year, probably on the order of 400, while the 767 and A330 are flying about 4,000 hours per year in commercial passenger service, and quite reliably."

one of the main reasons for buying a Multi role tanker transport is that it will take alot of work from other hard pressed fleets like the C17

[keesje]

I think the KC777 might have been a good tanker / transporter, but not for this requirement. I heard a fully loaded 772LRF needs 11.000 ft of runway at sealevel (can anyone confirm) while the USAF requirement is 7.000 ft.

Some basics from Seattle Times (know for great illustrations):

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/news/business/links/tanker26.gif

as for the rest most people seem to agree the KC30 is the more capable option.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/kcx%20tanker2.jpg

It seems to me the USAF is adding an awfull cargo / passenger capability to its tanker fleet. 32 pallets 4000nm non stop is serious.

I wonder if they will sit in the desert as much as the KC135 during the last 40 yrs, or the USAF will put them to use.

That could IMO mean bad news for follow on C-17 orders and civil contractors..

[Graybeard]

knowitall replied to my prior:

"if you could find a fleet of 179 identical (or nearly identical) aircraft than it might be a viable option"

They don't need 179 all same airplanes; otherwise they would have bought 500 KC-10A Extender in 1983, rather than just 60. Most of the differences between fleets of 767-200s and DC10-30s are nonstructural, and would go away in the conversion process.
----
"one of the main reasons for buying a Multi role tanker transport is that it will take alot of work from other hard pressed fleets like the C17"

Oh, so now the A330 is supposedly capable of short or rough airstrips like the C-17 was built for?

The KC-10A has full upper deck available for pax or cargo, yet it's probably rarely used for that. Most of the US military cargo is hauled by private companies like Evergreen Intl, Atlas/Polar, Kalitta, etc., using veteran 747-1 and -2, most of which have had cargo doors cut in them to convert from pax config, btw.

The USAF should not be in the pax or cargo hauling business, when competing private companies do it more efficiently, and with elastic supply.

A tanker is much like a fire truck. It has to be ready to go when you need it.

GB

[Roland Pulfrew]

Oh, so now the A330 is supposedly capable of short or rough airstrips like the C-17 was built for?


No greybeard it wont. But then again that is not what knowitall is saying. If you use your KC30/45s to do more of the routine resupply from CONUS to FOB then you release more of your C17s to do the short or rough strip role. It's simple logic really.

The USAF should be buying used 767s and DC10-30s with, say 50,000 hours on the airframes, and having them converted to tankers.

Given the RAF's experience of buying used and converting you are simply wide of the mark here. It is expensive and you have to replace your capability earlier. The reason that the KC135s have done 40 odd years is because they were brand new when brought into service. Buying used is a short term saving against a long term cost.

Lets face it. The KC30/45 is simply a more capable aircraft than the KC767. Boeing did not bid a KC-777 so we can ignore what might have been. Now if only the RAF were buying 20 KC30s (which we need NOW) instead of the PFI farce that we are still persisting with.....

[Graybeard]

"If you use your KC30/45s to do more of the routine resupply from CONUS to FOB then you release more of your C17s to do the short or rough strip role. It's simple logic really."

They now use Atlas, DHL, Evergreen, Kalitta, et al, to haul the routine cargo, at far less cost than borrowing tankers for the job.

Will the KC30/45 haul the dense, outsized cargo the C-17 carries?

"Given the RAF's experience of buying used and converting you are simply wide of the mark here. It is expensive and you have to replace your capability earlier. The reason that the KC135s have done 40 odd years is because they were brand new when brought into service. Buying used is a short term saving against a long term cost.

Buying planes with a third of their hours/cycles left is prudent economics. Look at all the 747 cargo haulers carrying the USAF loads today. They are upgrading to 747-4 to save fuel, not for longer life, or because they are new and shiny.

Even Boeing, with their factory discount, didn't use new planes to make their five 747-400 LCF, Dreamhaulers. They bought used 747-400 for the job.

Trying to justify spending $40 Billion based on ancillary uses shows the weakness of the primary argument - the imagined need for brand new airplanes that will get 15% utilization.

GB

[Graybeard]

Lou is outraged at the continued outsourcing of US jobs, and this tanker contract in particular. I have info that he plans to discuss the idea of converting used planes to tankers. It may not be tonight, or not at all, but it's in the works.

GB

[Roland Pulfrew]

Graybeard

You are grasping at straws.

Will the KC30/45 haul the dense, outsized cargo the C-17 carries?


I assume that was a rhetorical question, because if you meant it then the answer is obviously "No, obviously not!". They can be used for pax and freight just in the same way as the KC135 and KC10 can be, and are. Only you can get a lot more pax and freight into a KC30 AND still do the tanking. It makes deployments a lot easier.

Buying planes with a third of their hours/cycles left is prudent economics. Look at all the 747 cargo haulers carrying the USAF loads today. They are upgrading to 747-4 to save fuel, not for longer life, or because they are new and shiny.


Only if you plan to use them and burn them out and then replace them with the next generation of airline cast-offs. I can't see the US taxpayer being happy with having to replace inefficient, out-of-date, expensively modified tankers in 15-20 years time when they could buy a brand new fleet that will last 30 - 40 years.

The fact is that second hand aircraft will become more difficult to maintain, are less efficient, will require expensive upgrades to maintain compliance with items such as GATM and will have a shorter operational life than new ones.

Trying to justify spending $40 Billion based on ancillary uses shows the weakness of the primary argument

Not trying to justify the purchase based on ancilliary uses, it just demonstrates that you get an additional free capability whether you choose to use it or not. Lets face it, if you don't need all your tankers on any one day then you can use them for freight and pax. Therefore you don't have to charter from Evergreen etc and you save the taxpayer some $$$, or you free up $$$ to spend on other equipment programmes

The fact remains, as demonstrated in keesje's post below which I wont bother copying again, the KC30/45 is a far more capable aircraft than the hybrid 767 and its cheaper!! If the USAF choose to employ them as flexibly as possible you save money. Buying second hand doesn't make sense in the military.

[MarkD]

greybeard

As Roland reminds you - buying tired DC-10s and B767s makes sense if you want the tankers to last 10 years or so, which just means having to replace them again at the same time as the next tranche of KC-135 and the first tranche of KC-10. Even the RAF rejected that option (buying ex-airline 767s) and have so far resisted temptation to resurrect more Tristars.

Look how long the KC-135 fleet, built from new, have lasted until relief. Even if you do buy 10s or 767s from the desert, they don't have the glass cockpits and mods of even the Frankentanker so you're only getting something like what the Japanese and Italians are getting unless you rebuild them, and then what's the point?

It might be true that there is a lot of ANG experience on 767s today, but those pilots are flying some of those planes to the breakers yard right now. What about the future ANG pilots coming off glass 737/777/787 to fly a clockwork 767 or 10?

As for Lou Dobbs - he's a joke, an absolute hysteric who because he works for CNN gets a smidgen more cred than O'Reilly. He just had Jack Layton on his show the other day and anyone who is aware of current Canadian politics will know how dumb an invite that was.

[knowitall]

greybeard

no im not suggesting anyone attempt a Khe Sanh approach in an A330!

It wont do all the things a c17 can do but it will take a lot of the "routine" work from an overworked fleet, esp as it will have defensive systems as well

"They don't need 179 all same airplanes; otherwise they would have bought 500 KC-10A Extender in 1983, rather than just 60."

you are aware this order is only to replace the older kc135's, not the whole tanker fleet?

there's 2 more competitions after this


"Most of the differences between fleets of 767-200s and DC10-30s are nonstructural, and would go away in the conversion process."

your still looking at differant fleets, differant spares, a whole extra layer of expense if you have to order more than one type

"The fact is that second hand aircraft will become more difficult to maintain, are less efficient, will require expensive upgrades to maintain compliance with items such as GATM and will have a shorter operational life than new ones."

Agreed, to summarize though the initial "sticker shock" may be less with a second hand aircraft the whole of life cost will be higher

[BEagle]

Should the unforgiveable happen, and Boring's lawyers manage to overturn the USAF's decision, their Frankentanker will forever be known as 'The Tanker the Air Force didn't want'.

As for some KC-777 version, Boring should recall that one of the reasons they won the Italian 767 tanker programme (if their corporate memory stretches back that far into history) was that, at the time, Airbus couldn't decide whether to offer them the A310MRTT or the A330MRTT. "If they can't decide which to offer, they obviously haven't understood our need' was the IAF feeling....

The runway at Pratica de Mare has since been extended to cope with the ground-gripping characteristics of the still undelivered 767-200 tanker. But even so, it still will be unable to get airborne at MTOW in the summer.

Perhaps they build the KC-767 at Kansas because it's nice and flat?

Face it, Boring, your jet isn't as good. Dress it up however you will, but it simply doesn't measure up to the A330.

And what a shame that your own Top Brass announced that the 7-late-7 "Didn't have the right configuration to be a tanker".....

[LowObservable]

I would guess that the problem with the 787 is tail clearance, as it is with the 767-300. There's a Boeing patent that shows a boom retracting into the rear fuselage.
Personally, apart from the A330 being a larger aircraft, I think a huge distinction was pallet capability. Cargo aircraft tend to bulk out more often than they max out on weight, so the A330's wider body and ability to carry pallets long-side-across is a big factor once you (very sensibly) decide to haul cargo; and there's a lot of military cargo that can go on pallets on an A330-type cargo aircraft versus a C-17.

[MDJETFAN]

Re The Idea Of Buying Used Dc-10-30s With Less Than 50,000 Hrs, I Doubt If There Are Any That Would Meet That Requirement. Most Are Much Closer To Or Beyond 100,000 Hrs.

With The Higher Labor Rates In Europe Vs The Usa In Dollar Terms, I'm Curious To Know How Eads Could Match Boeing's Price Especially Since The Kc-43 Is A Bigger Aircraft.

[Graybeard]

A for-profit airline would never buy a new plane they need only a few hours a day. It makes no economic sense. A $200 Million plane will cost $30,000 a day in interest @ just 6% per annum. In reality the finance costs, including depreciation, are much higher.

Airlines that haul most of the pax and cargo for the US military are flying high time 747 pax planes that have been converted to cargo, older 757s, DC-10s, etc. They cannot justify the cost of new planes for the job, so the USAF can't either.

The A-330 may do fine as a tanker, once converted, but it is far too expensive for the job. So is a new 767. We taxpayers deserve fiscal responsibility.

While there may not be any or many midlife DC-10s left, there are plenty of MD-11, and at reasonable prices. Heck, the 757 may even be a good direct replacement for the KC-135.

Converting a used pax plane to tanker is not at all unthinkable. Upon delivery of the 60th and final KC-10A to the USAF, McDonnell-Douglas offered to convert some used DC10-30, but it fell on deaf ears.

GB

[Mr Quite Happy]

With The Higher Labor Rates In Europe Vs The Usa In Dollar Terms, I'm Curious To Know How Eads Could Match Boeing's Price Especially Since The Kc-43 Is A Bigger Aircraft.

That would have been part of the RFP process, "explain how you arrived at your bid price".

[Mr Quite Happy]

The A-330 may do fine as a tanker, once converted, but it is far too expensive for the job. So is a new 767. We taxpayers deserve fiscal responsibility.

GB

Of course, you could just have less, 600 really is a surge full all out war against an enemy that doesn't exist kinda number. Or you could sort out that division of responsibilities crap which see's some airwings super busy whilst others doing nothing..

Lastly, not buying new would screw voters and job plans in AZ as well as profits for wall street..

[Roland Pulfrew]

Graybeard

I am utterly stunned, but at least you are showing your true colours. And studiously ignoring many of the counter arguments to your, IMHO, naive viewpoint.

They cannot justify the cost of new planes for the job, so the USAF can't either.

The A-330 may do fine as a tanker, once converted, but it is far too expensive for the job. So is a new 767. We taxpayers deserve fiscal responsibility.


Your argument is typically short-termist. You don't work for the British Government do you?

If you buy and convert second hand airliners, even if there were suitable numbers available - which there aren't - you would have to pay to convert, pay to modify to the same standard, pay to fit with DAS and secure comms etc and then pay to maintain an ageing fleet. You would then have to replace that fleet in 10 or 15 years, maybe 20 at a push. If you buy second hand again you have to pay to maintain an ageing fleet which you might get 10 or 20 years out of before you have to replace again.

Now which one of these will end up more expensive than buying a new fleet, which has a better capability than anything else on offer at present, in terms of whole life costs? That's fiscal responsibility for you.

You are not going to find sufficient standard mod second-hand types to meet this requirement. If they aren't to the same mod state then your maintenence costs go up (RAF Tristar and VC10 experience, and USAF KC135 experience), or you have to pay to mod them to the same standard as opposed to getting them all to the same standard straight off the production line.

Additional KC10s once the 60 order was complete? Who knows? Maybe the USAF had enough tankers by then and didn't need any more. Or they decided they had higher priorities than more tankers. 757 as a tanker? Forget it! Looked at by Boeing (and others) and ditched as impractical!!

By your simplistic argument none of the major airlines should buy new aircraft either. If the USAF can't afford new then why should the airlines. And why don't the USAF deserve the best that there is? As I said before, and a point you ignored, the KC135 fleet has lasted as long as it has because they were bought new and not converted from some knackered airline stock. That is fiscal responsibility and I would suggest excellent VFM for the tax payer.

[Graybeard]

Pulgrew berated, "By your simplistic argument none of the major airlines should buy new aircraft either. If the USAF can't afford new then why should the airlines. And why don't the USAF deserve the best that there is? As I said before, and a point you ignored, the KC135 fleet has lasted as long as it has because they were bought new and not converted from some knackered airline stock. That is fiscal responsibility and I would suggest excellent VFM for the tax payer."

The very point is the smart airlines have very high utilization of their long haul planes; on the order of 14-18 hours a day. Back when the 747-400 first came out, it would generate its own $140 Million cost in revenue about every 8 months. Fixed costs are huge for a new airplane vs. an old one, and the tanker fleet has very low utilization.

Military charters use old airplanes due to low utilization. If a clapped out DC-10 or 747-100 is good enough for 300 of our high value troops, it's good enough for a flying fuel farm.

GATM and other electronic advancements have to be put in the entire fleet anyhow. Makes little difference if it's a KC-10A or a military A330. Used 767s can receive avionics upgrades while the tanks and boom are installed.

"Rust never sleeps" means the older a plane, the more serious the corrosion and other aging items, such as wiring. Converting a fifteen year old plane that is half run out in hours and cycles, and dropping to utilization in tanker service to where wearout and obsolesence converge is prudent economics.

The longer you plan into the future, the less you can be sure that today's device will be competitive, so better a ten year tanker than a 50 year old flying dinosaur.

Note, the firefighting DC-10 tanker was on its way to the boneyard when converted. It is getting 100-200 hours per year, a ridiculously low number if it were a new plane. The second DC-10 tanker is even longer in the tooth (older) than the first one. The 747 Evergreen has converted to firefighting is a -100 that is within view of its life limit in cycles or hours.

It's high time to put the Pentagon on a diet. $350 Million fighters are nonsense.

GB

[Caspian237]

This is probably old news

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3417693&c=AME&s=TOP


...Boeing.... say service officials' explanation about how they picked the winner were a bit out of line with the requirements proffered during the competition. They say the Air Force told the Chicago-based company throughout the competition it wanted a medium-sized plane like Boeing's 767, not Airbus' A330.

"In our reading of the RfP [Request for Proposals] this was never about being the biggest" plane, said James Albaugh, Boeing's defense chief. "This was never about who could haul more fuel. This was never about who could haul the most cargo or personnel," he said during a Wall Street conference last week. "This was about deploying fuel to the fight. This was about deploying to forward runways. This was about replacing the KC-135."
Albaugh said Boeing would have offered a tanker based on its larger 777 if the air service had made clear it wanted a bigger tanker, but "we were discouraged [by the Air Force] from doing so."


It's interesting that Boeing claim that the were actively discouraged from entering the 777 by the USAF, a tanker which in their opinion would have been more appropriate given the reasons for the A330's selection. Is this sour grapes or do they have a point?

[BEagle]

It's sour grapes. If they'd wanted to interest the USAF in the 777, they would have actively done so.

Whereas they just sat around complacently on their elbows bleating about how good their KC-767 was going to be - without actually building one (the Italian and Japanese aircraft aren't full-up KC-767s) or even managing to conduct a wet offload through the pods.... Their primary objective being to keep the 767 in production.

"This was about deploying fuel to the fight. This was about deploying to forward runways. This was about replacing the KC-135."

If you have a larger fuel volume to offer, you simply don't need to deploy so far forward but can operate from a safer rearward location.

In any case, those 'forward runways' would have to be pretty long ones to cope with the Boeing Frankentanker at MTOW!

[Jackonicko]

As BEagle says.

If Jim Albaugh is serious (surely he knows what he's saying?) and "this was about deploying to forward runways" then that's an admission that the right aircraft won.

Because a KC-767 with 92 tonnes of fuel needs a longer runway than a KC-30 does with 111 tonnes!

And a 777 would be even more of a non-starter.

[ARRAKIS]

What is the runway length required by the Boeing's Frankentanker at MTOW?

Arrakis

[BEagle]

Put it this way:

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 kgAssessments were made by an impartial body, with the results for the KC-767 coming from US representatives.

When we first set up the query, the immediate first quesion from the US was "Can you make it a 12000 ft runway?".

"NO"

Mind you, some fighter general, never having heard of balanced field length, tried to say that the 767 didn't need long runways...he quoted its take-off run, knowing cock all about accelerate-stop distance requirements.

[Been Accounting]

I would guess that the problem with the 787 is tail clearance, as it is with the 767-300.

This is fascinating because it implies that with the Boeing-style tail the the 767 could only field the shortest version i.e. the -200. The A330-200 swept-up tail becomes a natural place to tuck the boom but also maintains rotation angle on take-off ...

So the 777 with the same style tail might not be a way out for Boeing (apart from being much bigger on the ramp and much more expensive to run).

[Roland Pulfrew]

Groybard

Go for it, mate. I see you are still ignoring the cost through life. I take it back. You don't work for the British Govt (although you should), you work for Boeing!

Yes airlines have high utilisation. Shocked and stunned, its called profit. Tankers don't necessarily have high utilization. Shocked and stunned. At least buying NEW KC-30/45s will allow the USAF (potentally) better utilization as they can be used in the tanker and transport roles!!

Military charters use old airplanes because they are cheap - pure and simple.

You are still studiously ignoring whole life costs.

Used 767s can receive avionics upgrades while the tanks and boom are installed.


Yes they can, but it adds to the cost. You need to redesign the cockpit to accept GATM requirements. Buy them built in, you don't have the redesign costs.

Military charters use old airplanes due to low utilization. If a clapped out DC-10 or 747-100 is good enough for 300 of our high value troops, it's good enough for a flying fuel farm.


Yes but in 10 years the military charter companies will have sold their old aircraft (probably to the fire-fighters) and replaced them with the latest generation of second-hand aircraft, thereby safeguarding your troops.

so better a ten year tanker than a 50 year old flying dinosaur.


Really? Really!!! So the F-35, that brand new, not yet in service, designed to serve for 25-30+ years fighter won't need tanking in 20, or 25 years? Or 30 years? It is all about looking across your entire service, not just about a single item. If the FJs are designed to be around for that length of time and they need tanking when they enter service, why will they not need tanking in 10, or 20 or 30 years?

There still aren't sufficient second hand airframes around to meet the USAF REQUIREMENT for this, the first tranche of replacements.

Converting to fire fighters. Specious argument. You wouldn't want to invest in a brand new 787 as fire fighting aircraft in such a dangerous role, would you? Maybe you do work for the British Govt.

$350 Million fighters are nonsense

COMPLETELY different argument.

Stop changing the argument. As BEagle and Jackonicko point out. The right aircraft won. It met the requirement (actually probably exceeded it) the 767 was the only alternative and it lost. There were no other competitors so specious arguments about second-hand aircraft are actually completely irrelevant!! I give up.

[Been Accounting]

So the 777 with the same style tail might not be a way out for Boeing (apart from being much bigger on the ramp and much more expensive to run).

... and I never understood why the 787 couldn't be a tanker. Is it the CFRP or the tail shape??

[Flight Safety]

Caspian237 is right, Boeing's protest is not about the merits of each tanker (as both would be excellent tankers), this is about making last minute changes to the RFP (request for proposal) in favor of the NG/EADS aircraft!!

First, the "frankentanker" argument is pure garbage. Doesn't the A330MRTT use the A340 wing? Each airframer is assembling airframe components to produce the tanker they feel best meets the mission requirements, period.

This also isn't about the fact that the KC30 is a larger tanker than the KC767, of course it's freak'n larger. But larger is not always better, as it depends on the mission. This is why in all the aviation universe there are both larger and smaller aircraft, as each have their place. Look at the current USAF mix of tankers, 500 plus KC-135s, and less than 60 KC-10A Extenders. One is medium sized, the other is large. I note that most airlines have more smaller aircraft than larger aircraft, and I note that DOD has more smaller cargo transports than larger cargo transports. This mix of more smaller than larger aircraft is common in aviation, as you all know.

This RFP was originally drafted to replace the KC135 fleet (the medium sized tanker, not the larger tanker). Boeing's complaint is that the RFP was changed at the last minute to favor the larger KC30, which WAS NOT the original requirement. If it had been the original requirement, Boeing would have offered a 777 based tanker instead. Boeing further states that the complex evaluation formula, was both created for the USAF and altered at the last minute by ANOTHER DIVISION of Northrop Grumman, thus creating a direct conflict of interest favoring the larger KC30 at the last minute.

Again, this is not about which aircraft has better merit as a tanker, they both have merit. This is about changing the requirements at the last minute, all other arguments are total BS at this point. Imagine your outrage if you worked many many months and did your best to meet the exact requirements as laid out in an RFP, only to have your competition change those requirements right before the decision is made, in favor of their offering!!!

That's what this is about.

[BEagle]

You would have thought that Boeing might have learned from the FSTA saga.....

TTSC offered secondhand 767s which met the RFP (or rather ISUN or somesuch); AirTanker offered new build 330s which met and exceeded the RFP.

The military customer will always prefer the solution which offers more for the same price.

Besides which, no-one else is interested in the Frankentanker, whereas the 330 has already attracted other orders.

The writing was there on the wall for all to see.....

[brickhistory]

As always, the outcome for this amount of money will be political. I was surprised that Boeing didn't win it for that reason, but as I've said, I'll wait until new tankers are on USAF ramps before I believe it.



Re Graybeard's 'buy used' comments, may I simply ask you to do some research on the E-8C JSTARS 707 program?

A really wonderful system packed into a pig of a clapped out, highly used, highly expensive to modify, highly expensive to operate 'bargain' airframe.

Only going to use a tanker for 5, even 10 years? Sure, get a used one then throw it away when you are done.

Want it around for the 50 years and counting that the -135s are flying, and I'd say the US taxpayer got a helluva lot for his money. As it's likely that a new tanker will have to last for a comparable time, a used one will more expensive over that same period to keep flying. Defeats your argument, I think.

By the way, your '600' is for only for surge ops, not so much for accuracy either.....

[mfaff]

Flight Safety,

You make good points, however there are a few issues that may reveal that both main thrusts of your argument are incorrect...

1) The mix of parts (-200/-300/-400/ER versions) proposed for the KC-767 has not yet been physically assembled and flown (the Japanese and Italian KC-767 tankers being different beasts)...whereas the A330MRTT is already flying, its airframe being the one proposed in the KC-X programme.

Boeing may be correct in its assessment that the risk is low etc, the reality is that they have not yet flown that unique mix...until they do so it is a forecast, to be proven. The A330MRTT is flying and that affects the overall risk issue. (The other issue that is not being viewed is that EADS has developed their boom specifically, and on spec. for this competition and have flown it and transfered fuel, Boeing has stated they will develop a new boom, but in the near term have quite rightly used their unrivalled boom building and flying experience as guarantors of its skill and ability to deliver a new generation boom)

2) From what has been published openly it would seem that Boeing does have a point about the change in criteria. However far from being a change to 'favour' Airbus it was the expansion of the criteria to permit a quantitative analysis of the overall airframe capacity; mainly volume and pallet numbers. This naturally favours a larger airframe. Again if those same open sources are to be believed; at the time of the change bidders were able to alter the base airframe on which they were going to submit best and final bids. It would appear that at some point an informed choice was made to retain the 767 as a base.

One would imagine it was done so for very clear reasons, mainly to do with the advantages a smaller airframe has in terms of ramps space, hanger space and so forth..all already integrated into parts of the criteria. One must furthermore assume that an internal Boeing evaluation made it clear that the increased scoring on the new criteria was outweighed by loss of points on the other criteria.. in other words a net loss of points, hence staying with the 767.

So whilst there does seem to have been a change, it would equally appear it was neither 'hidden' nor where bidders denied the opportunity to modify their bids to take advantage of it.

Now which is the best tanker is always going to depend on one's criteria and so its always going to be a balance and as brickhistory says, until one of these appears in service colours on a squadron ramp 'the fat lady ain't sung'...

[Flight Safety]

Something not discussed yet (at least in this thread) is how the tankers will be used in warfighting.

I'm not sure of the criteria for this, but is having more medium tankers better during air operations than fewer large tankers? Is ramp space a consideration when busy air operations are ongoing? Is it better to send out more tankers during combat operations to refuel in more diverse locations, than it is for aircraft to wait in line to fill up at fewer but larger tankers?

Since these tankers are going to be used for the next 40-50 years, does the procurement of more F-22s and F-35s (stealthy aircraft) change the way strike packages will be put together? My understanding is that fewer aircraft are used in each strike package when stealth aircraft with precision weapons are used. This seems to suggest that during combat air operations with high sortie rates, that more medium tankers (able to deliver fuel in more diverse locations) would be better than fewer large tankers.

Granted when used as a transport, a larger tanker can carry more troops or cargo on each sortie, but a tanker is an absolutely vital asset during combat air operations, therefore selection criteria should favor a tanker's contribution to the warfighting effort over its cargo capability. During a build up to a conflict, the tanker (as a transport) is valuable at moving assets into the theater. But during the conflict, the tanker will be used mainly as a tanker. Also, a long range tanker transporting fuel over long ranges, has an adverse affect on sortie rates, but the capability could be useful at other times.

Also, operating costs are a consideration for the military just as they are for anyone else when it comes to plane size. It just costs more to send a larger aircraft when a smaller aircraft can get the job done. Conversely, it costs more to send 2 smaller aircraft when a larger one can get the job done.

I honestly don't know details for these criteria, but perhaps the USAF needs a mix of both tankers types. I just wonder, since Boeing has decades of experience with these criteria, if they chose the KC767 because they believed it would be the right size for the warfighter.

mfaff, this should answer item 2). In regards to item 1), all of the parts have been certified and fly on other aircraft, and Boeing has mixed parts before (first BBJ, 747 SRS, etc), so I don't really see this as a problem.

[SirToppamHat]

Flight Safety

I'm not sure of the criteria for this, but is having more medium tankers better during air operations than fewer large tankers?

Speaking purely from the tactical perspective, and as an MC, personally I would go for several smaller tankers rather than one large. You can always have smaller ones operating 'in-cell', which effectively increases the number of hoses from one refuelling point. This also gives the flexibility to split the cell in support of several widely disparate actions.

Defensively, there are arguments for and against - Tankers are considered HVAAs, and you might increase the number you have to 'defend'; against this is the idea thet the loss of one doesn't take the whole capability away.

In the late 80s and early 90s, there was alot of talk of small tankers (VC10/Victor) operating relatively close to the red line, supported by large tankers to refuel the small refuellers further behind the line.

Unfortunately, from a UK perspective, we are hamstrung not only by the poor serviceability of tanker assets, but also by the number of crews available - from this last point at least, it follows that fewer is better, but that's what happens when the military is run by accountants!

STH

Edited for 90s/80s muppetry!

[mfaff]

Flight,

I think your view on how the tankers are used is a good one, but is it the one used during selection?
Bear in mind that the EADS tanker is configured for centreline boom and drogue and can have (not certain if they are part of the order) drogue pods on each wing, so double tanking (USN/USA helos and allies) could happen, as well as large offload...this double tanking potential is an advantage over the 767 as proposed, making th enumbers arguement more complex.

There is a balance to strike (ho ho) between the 'combat' operations side and actually getting the combat capability to the combat area in the most effective and efficient manner as well as the peace time operational tempo.

If we were to consider the 'warfighting' aspect as primary then the 767 is still potentially the wrong aircraft, its too big WRT to its off load capability and airfield performance compared to the A310MRTT; admittedly not offered as in EADS's view the larger airframe offered the better compromise. The A310 would offer, for the overall budget greater numbers of airframes and hence number of refueling points airborne, potentially..and an offload capability that pretty much matches the 767 on a one to one basis, whilst being a smaller plane to locate more diversely etc etc.

The answer sadly is that in order to replace the 135 there were two board approaches.. a similar sized unit which replaced the 135 on a one for one basis (not in the order..) or a larger unit that doubled up with increased capacity and so the overall number could be reduced.

EADS felt that bigger offered the tanking capacity required as well as something more, whereas Boeing stuck to the tanking requirement....and made a clear call not to offer much more.

As for the parts mix, yes they are flying in different airframes and Boeing have made hybrids before very successfully, and as with the boom, offered their massive experience as proof the 'could' do it. But the reality as that Boeing offered a great track record and a design, EADS offered a good track record and a design that was already flying. A fine balance indeed.

But the political battle is only just beginning and the actual capabilites and needs of the warfighters will be overshadowed by the political needs of those assigning tax payers dollars to them.

[Jig Peter]

Way back in the Tanker Saga, when the "Mk.2" RFP was issued, didn't the NG/EADS team comment that it was still so skewed towards the 767 (like RFP Mk.1) that it would not be worth their while to enter such a biased "contest"? Apparently the Committee agreed and then allowed NG/EADS to have some input, after which things proceeded as we now know.
Now Boeing complains that the playing field has been tilted ... well yes, but at least it was then pretty well level - and they still reckoned it was bound to go their way ...
Granted they could have then proposed a 777 base, but with curent airline demand, when would production slots have been available? The 767 line has only been kept "open" for the KC version, so they stuck with the "Bitza" (bitsa this 'n bitsa that), and perhaps felt that they could then charge the shut-down costs to Uncle Sam ??? (Just a thought).

[giblets]

Hi, Anyone know where there is a copy of the USAF RFP for the KC-X, the DOD seem to have taken theirs down!

[Graybeard]

There is hardly a greater freighter than the DC-10 or MD-11, yet the USAF does not use their KC-10A fleet for regularly hauling cargo. The missions of cargo and refueling don't normally coincide. The 767 is an oddball for hauling cargo, so what?

According to Wiki, the KC-135 fleet is largely used in theatre, while the KC-10A are used over the pond.

The economics of buying a plane to last for 50 years is laughable. Most of the KC-135 fleet have had two engine changes, from J-57 to TF-33 (from retired 707s) to CFM-56.

"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.

The Air Force projects that E and R models have lifetime flying hour limits of 36,000 and 39,000 hours, respectively. According to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s would reach these limits before 2040, but at that time some of the aircraft would be about 80 years old. The Air Force estimates that their current fleet of KC-135s have between 12,000 to 14,000 flying hours on them-only 33 percent of the lifetime flying hour limit. Nevertheless these aircraft are over 40 years old and maintenance costs are increasing, with airframe corrosion being the worst problem."

It's better to put 767-200ERs into semi-retirement at a few hundred hours per year, with total cost undoubtedly under $50 Million each, vs. brand new $200 Million whatevers. There may even be used 737s that fit the mission, or a combination of 737s and 767s.

In order of utilization, hauling pax on scheduled ops is normally highest, followed by various cargo ops, and aerial refueling is near the bottom.

Fedex and UPS, two of the world's most successful airlines, buy new planes only when used ones are not available for the mission. Fedex has even spent $50 Million a copy to create the MD-10, a DC-10 with MD-11 cockpit.

The USAF should contract with Fedex and UPS to take their half-life or third-life 767s and MD-11s, and convert them to tankers.

The A330 refueler is supposedly scheduled to replace the KC-10A fleet. The A330F empty operating weight is 109 metric tons and takeoff max is 230t. The KC-10A base DC10-30 EOW is 121t and max 260t. That's in the same league, but not quite a direct replacement.

The MD-11 empty operating weight is 113t and max takeoff weight is 286t. Now there's a real fuel farm.

GB

[Roland Pulfrew]

The economics of buying a plane to last for 50 years is laughable.

Why?

Most of the KC-135 fleet have had two engine changes, from J-57 to TF-33 (from retired 707s) to CFM-56.

So what? It is almost certainly cheaper to re-engine than to replace the entire fleet every 10 or 15 years = better value for the taxpayer.

Nevertheless these aircraft are over 40 years old and maintenance costs are increasing, with airframe corrosion being the worst problem

And that will happen if you buy second hand 767, DC10 or MD 11s. The first 767s are now verging on 30 years old and the first MD11s are already 20 years old. - Source: Boeing

According to Wiki, the KC-135 fleet is largely used in theatre, while the KC-10A are used over the pond

As any university student will tell you, be cautious of anything on Wiki = find a primary and reliable source.

There may even be used 737s that fit the mission

But there are no 737 tankers, nor are there any 737 tanker designs. Nor has anyone, not even the Israelis (not a slight on Israel please note, just a comment on the country's ingenuity) offered a 737 design.

The USAF should contract with Fedex and UPS to take their half-life or third-life 767s and MD-11s, and convert them to tankers.


Hmm. The first potentially viable proposition. But do Fedex want to sell these aircraft? Are there enough of them to meet the USAF first tranche requirement? They are still ageing aircraft which adds to, by your own quotation above, the maintenence costs of your fleet. AND you now have 2 different types of tanker on top of the remaining KC10s and KC135s so four different tanker fleets to maintain, with the ancilliary spare parts, logistics, training and GSE increases in cost = not good value for the taxpayer.

The A330 refueler is supposedly scheduled to replace the KC-10A fleet

Nope, tranche 1 is supposed to replace the remaining KC135E models.

The MD-11

But nobody offered the MD11. Are there sufficient available to meet this order? I doubt it. And it still leaves the problem of buying in and paying to standardise lots of aircraft from different airlines. And then paying to convert them. And then paying to maintain them through life. Which is likely to be more expensive to the taxpayer as you will not get 40 years out of them, or if you do you will still face the same problems as operating and maintaining 40+year old KC135s!!

[Mudfoot]

Just a thought - B claims lower fuel burn, and so does A. Under take-off load, that may be true for the 767, but A states their A330 burns less at common load. Does that mean, when the A330 offloads enough fuel to equal the take-off qty of the 767, the A330 will burn less than the 767? Discuss...

Cheers, y'all

[MarkD]

First, the "frankentanker" argument is pure garbage. Doesn't the A330MRTT use the A340 wing? No. It uses the A330/340 wing. There is no A330-specific wing for non-MRTT aircraft. In fact some might say non-MRTT aircraft are underoptimised.

If A330MRTT was proposed with A350 or A300 parts, then you could call the argument "garbage" - well actually you couldn't. The argument - that planes assembled from bits of other planes are Frankensteins - would be true. You could call Airbus hypocrites though.

[MarkD]

With The Higher Labor Rates In Europe Vs The Usa In Dollar Terms, I'm Curious To Know How Eads Could Match Boeing's Price Especially Since The Kc-43 Is A Bigger Aircraft.Perhaps because many of the major components (engines for example) on both KC-767 and KC-45 are assembled in the US and many components of both aircraft are made abroad. If 100% of the 767 was made in the US and 100% of the 330 made in Europe there would be a much wider difference.

It may be that given their relative market share in the widebody sector at present, Pratt & Whitney were not able to offer their engine for the Boeing at a similar cost to the booming General Electric did for Airbus, but that would be speculative.

It could also be that the strike-threatening unions at Boeing have raised costs, even in the weak US exchange rate, to the point where strike-threatening French unions become competitive - if so, that would be quite an achievement.

[D-IFF_ident]

GB, your statements regarding the USAF not utilizing the cargo capacity of the KC10 are, I am afraid to say, tosh. The many 'channel' missions around the Pacific are but one set of examples available. :=

[dmanton300]

"Most of the KC-135 fleet have had two engine changes, from J-57 to TF-33 (from retired 707s) to CFM-56."

In actual fact most of the KC-135 fleet have only ever had ONE engine change. 157 Air Guard and Reserve aircraft went through the A-to-E conversion in the 80's, where they utilised the TF-33's and larger tailplanes of retired B-707's, and an entirely seperate programme for USAF KC-135A's which saw 400 or so go from J-57 to CFM-56. I'm unaware of any KC-135's that have gone through all three iterations of available engine (possibly a few of the "queers", you know, "insert another letter in front of the C" jobs!).
The air guard are still happily toiling away with TF-33 engined E models, and as far as I know there are no plans for them to receive CFM-56's.

[US Herk]

I don't think there are too many KC-135E models flying anymore. I schedule 3-7 AAR sorties every week as part of the OCU here and we use all units - active, guard, & reserve. I haven't seen a KC-135E in well over a year...I'm not about to say they're all gone, as I don't have that bit of info, but I would at least put them on the endangered species list...

IIRC, my contact list for their scheduling, ops, & CP doesn't have a single KC-135E unit listed (but I'm at home w/o my list & make no claims as to its completeness as a comprehensive tanker listing, perhaps only half the country as we're out West - will try to remember to look tomorrow). I do recall having AAR cancelled over a couple of periods last year as a couple of the units were converting from E-model to R-model - these were primarily ANG units.

[Saintsman]

Originally Posted by Flight Safety
First, the "frankentanker" argument is pure garbage. Doesn't the A330MRTT use the A340 wing?

No. It uses the A330/340 wing. There is no A330-specific wing for non-MRTT aircraft. In fact some might say non-MRTT aircraft are underoptimised.


The only thing common with the A330/A340 wing is the shape and size. They are two different wings in content. The A330 wing does not have the strength and plumbing required for the outer engines - why would it? For MRTT / FSTA, the A330 wing needs significant strengthening around the rib 26 area to enable it to carry pods.

[BEagle]

As I understand it, the A330MRTT has the A330/340 wing with all the necessary plumbing - but has a pod rather than an engine on the outboard pylon.

This helped considerably with development - and meant that they weren't bedevilled by buffet problems caused by the pod pylon as were Boeing. One of the reasons why the Italian aircraft are so late is the delayed development of the essential wing AAR pod system.

The A330MRTT has already trailed and wound its hoses; not sure when wet contact trials start, but they won't be long in coming!

[Graybeard]

US Herk hypothesized: "I don't think there are too many KC-135E models flying anymore. I schedule 3-7 AAR sorties every week as part of the OCU here and we use all units - active, guard, & reserve. I haven't seen a KC-135E in well over a year...I'm not about to say they're all gone, as I don't have that bit of info, but I would at least put them on the endangered species list..."
------

Aren't the KC-135E models the first to be replaced by the New and Shiny?

To all: if you don't like what Wiki says, you are invited to correct it. They do provide references for the doubters and deeper delvers.

Re-engining
"All KC-135s were originally equipped with Pratt & Whitney J-57 turbojet engines which produced approximately 13,000 pounds of thrust and, in some conditions, utilized water-injection to boost takeoff power output. In the 1980s the first modification program re-engined 157 Air Force Reserve (AFRES) and Air National Guard (ANG) tankers with the Pratt & Whitney TF-33-PW-102 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_TF33) engines from retired 707 airliners. The re-engined tanker, designated the KC-135E, is 14% more fuel efficient than the KC-135A and can offload 20% more fuel. Only the KC-135E aircraft were equipped with thrust-reversers for takeoff aborts and shorter landing rollouts."

"The second modification program re-engined more than 410 with new CFM56 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56) engines produced by CFM-International. The re-engined tanker, designated either the KC-135R or KC-135T, can offload 50% more fuel, is 25% more fuel efficient, costs 25% less to operate and is 96% quieter than the KC-135A..."

"Upgrading the remaining KC-135E into KC-135R would cost about three billion dollars, about 24 million dollars per aircraft.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135_Stratotanker#_note-3). According to Air Force data, the KC-135 fleet had a total operation and support cost in fiscal year 2001 of about $2.2 billion. The older E model aircraft averaged total costs of about $4.6 million per aircraft, while the R models averaged about $3.7 million per aircraft. Those costs include personnel, fuel, maintenance, modifications, and spare parts [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135_Stratotanker#_note-4)."
----
OK, so each KC-135R did not get a double engine upgrade, but there have been two upgrades.
----

Replacing the KC-135
"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.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135_Stratotanker#_note-7)"

"The Air Force projects that E and R models have lifetime flying hour limits of 36,000 and 39,000 hours, respectively. According to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s would reach these limits before 2040, but at that time some of the aircraft would be about 80 years old."

"The Air Force estimates that their current fleet of KC-135s have between 12,000 to 14,000 flying hours on them-only 33 percent of the lifetime flying hour limit.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135_Stratotanker#_note-8)"

"Nevertheless these aircraft are over 40 years old and maintenance costs are increasing, with airframe corrosion being the worst problem."
--------

Please describe a typical AAR mission, US Herk, in terms of number of hookups and total fuel transfered. Do you often need the additional tonnage of the KC-10A?

GB

[Graybeard]

Replacing the KC-135 fleet with 15 year old airplanes such as 767s, or A310s at a fraction of the cost of new, and keeping them ten years, makes economic sense. An astute enterprise demands payback within three years, often less.

Planes designed for the military are often worn out or obsolete in several thousand hours. Well built commercial airliners such as the DC-10 are flying over 100,000 hours. The USAF should take advantage of that robustness for a replacement tanker, and buy airframes that have half their usable life and the majority of their cost behind them. Spending $200+ Million for a New and Shiny airplane is folly when used can be had for a quarter of the price. The USAF should be run like a business, not a taxpayer funded flying club.

How are the old A310s holding up?

GB

[Squirrel 41]

Graybeard

You make an interesting point. However, the great unknown is how many ex-airline 767 / DC-10 / MD-11s are actually available - and the mod state / engine choice / corrosion blah blah - and trying to buy 179 similar aircraft is likely to nothing but increase the price of those second hand jets.

So in principle a good idea, but for all the reasons outlined, I think that it is probably a non-starter.

S41

[GeeRam]

However, the great unknown is how many ex-airline 767 / DC-10 / MD-11s are actually available

A quick Google suggests as of Mar08

767 = 24
DC10/MD-11 = 11

I suspect that's airworthy/active rather than what may or may not be in deep store/reclamation out in one of the desert boneyards...?

[Brian Abraham]

As of January 2008 the following KC-135 models remained in the inventory
E 114
R 364
T 54
also KC-10A 59

[Roland Pulfrew]

Replacing the KC-135 fleet with 15 year old airplanes such as 767s, or A310s at a fraction of the cost of new, and keeping them ten years, makes economic sense.

No it doesn't. First you need 170+ second hand aircraft to be available - which they aren't. Then you need to bring them to the same standard. Then you need to modify them to KC configuration. And how long would it actually take to buy up 179 second hand aircraft (even if they are/were available) and convert them?

And as has been pointed out many times on this thread, you then have to replace them again in 10 years time. With what? And at what cost? You have to just start the whole process again.

Second hand aircraft may make a viable proposition to an airline or charter outfit that cannot afford new, however, it just doesn't make sense with a capability you want to last for another 20, 30 or 40 years.

Planes designed for the military are often worn out or obsolete in several thousand hours.

Well by your own examples that doesn't apply to the USAF KC135 fleet which have already lasted 40+ years, does it? :ugh::ugh::ugh: That would be because........ they were bought new, maintained well, upgraded when necessary and have a low hours utilization in comparison to airline usage.

[Pontius Navigator]

Who said 10 years?

The RAF went that route in 1974 when we bought East African VC10s as a cheap job lot then the BA VC10s. So that is 34 years and counting.

Then we bought the PanAm (I think) T* and that was 24 years ago.

[GeeRam]

Then we bought the PanAm (I think) T* and that was 24 years ago.

Not quite, the 3 x ex-Pan Am a/c are the three pass configured T*, the six tankers were the six ex-BA ones.

Actually with our relatively few numbers reqd in comparison to the US, it would have been sensible to have snapped up a good few extra T* over the years to replace the Vickyten's in a progressive way...?

Far too sensible I suppose for MOD.

[Pontius Navigator]

GeeRam, I didn't specify but the principl is the same. Buy 'low fatigue' civil airframes, fly them well below the civil rate but possibly at a higher fatigue level and keep them going long after an African airline would have sh1t canned them.

[BEagle]

PN - the VC10K2s were very tired ex-BOAC, ex-Gulf Air 'Standard' jets with very high hours on them when the RAF bought them. The VC10K3s were relatively youthful ex-Super VC10s, but were repossessed from the bankrupt EAAC. Whereas the VC10K4s were long-in-the-tooth ex-BA Supers which had been sitting around at Abingdon for years after acquisition, then given a lowest-cost (except that we're talking BWoS, of course) rebuild to become the nicest, but lowest capability VC10 tankers. No fuselage tanks, just a wet fin - so less fuel than either a K2 or K3. But with the 4 compressors, full cabin soundproofing and extra seats - and without the 'million pound dustbin' nonsense escape chute, they were nice and quiet to fly in. In, that is!

Actually, what should have happened was that, once the clearly demonstrable inability of Marshall Aerospace to fit pods on the TriStar had been confirmed, the TriStars should have become 100% transport assets. Because a single point tanker is just not good enough for probe-and-drogue receiver formations. Yes, I know the TriStar has 2 hoses, but they cannot be used simultaneously. The second is just a very expensive redundancy device.

With 216 being 100% transport, then the AT role should have become a very minor secondary capability for the VC10C1Ks of 10 Sqn allowing the single role VC10K2/3*/4s of the premier tanker squadron to have been tasked less heavily.

However, if there had really been a single functioning brain cell in the MoD-box of the '90s, the VC10s and TriStars would by now have been replaced by 24 spanking new A310MRTTs. Triple role and burning roughly 64% of the hourly burn rate of the Vickers FunBus.

Trouble was, someone came up with the utter bolleaux of PFI.......:yuk:




*OK - not quite 'single' role...;)

[ARRAKIS]

A little bit OT.
Looks like they will by a third user of KC-767 or I should say
B767 BDMRTT. One used B767-200ER modified by IAI Bedek into MRTT configuration for Columbia.

Arrakis

[Pontius Navigator]

BEagle, thanks for the detailed summary.

Apart from ending up with 4 different marks of VC10 you forgot to mention the advantage of buying from a variety of civil operators. We get to see how each aircraft could be developed individually :} and spend probably the same again demodding them all to a common airfrane before remodding them to a mil spec.

I was at a wedding reception with the wg cdr who acquired the EAAC for £100k apiece. Dog with two tails. He also acquired a shed load of spares then got out before the mod bills arrived.

[BEagle]

Rumour has it that a zero was inadvertently let off the invoice for the ex-East Efrickan jets.....

When we first had them, the 1960s/70s 'steward call' inserts on the K3 passenger facility units still had 'brown' faces! You could only see the other ex-EAAC traces if you opened an overwing escape panel and looked at the paintwork in the cabin aperture.

[GeeRam]

However, if there had really been a single functioning brain cell in the MoD-box of the '90s, the VC10s and TriStars would by now have been replaced by 24 spanking new A310MRTTs. Triple role and burning roughly 64% of the hourly burn rate of the Vickers FunBus.

Can't argue with that.

Trouble was, someone came up with the utter bolleaux of PFI.......

Definately can't argue with that.

There are going to be some serious post-PFI costs come home to haunt UK-PLC in 20+ years time, judging by some of the PFI's I've been involved with.

[galaxy flyer]

Let's face it-Boeing blew it. If they didn't understand the RFP (and offered the B777), they should have asked. The risks developing the Frankentanker was an important fact, especially given the 6 year delay already incurred. The AF could scarcely wait like the IAF has.

It is my feeling (and I'm not excited about Airbus, but it is the best plane) that the AF really wanted a DC-10 sized freighter/tanker. AMC loves the KC-10 and would have bought more, it available new. The advent of the F-22 and B-2 as combat planes, combined with UCAVs, is making vast strike packages of tankers, CAP fighters, attack planes, Weasels, etc a thing of the past. Freighting is just as important as tanking and the Airbus has it all over the 767. And it can do more to off-load fuel than the 767.

Boeing and your fans-get over it! If Congress gets involved, they will show how stupid they are and how the military's needs are NOT on their agenda.

Not excited? I'm a conservative type and Airbus FBW and cockpit is not something I appreciate. NO, I don't fly 'em, so it is a BS opinion, yes.

[US Herk]

Please describe a typical AAR mission, US Herk, in terms of number of hookups and total fuel transfered. Do you often need the additional tonnage of the KC-10A?

As a receiver, we typically schedule an hour of towline time. How many hookups depends on the training we require for our students, what level of qual they are (captain, instructor, co, re-qual, etc), and what phase of training.

Whilst we do refuel with KC-10A, it has more to do with boom availability than tonnage from an OCU perspective - what I do is fairly artificial though.

The most we'll offload is 6-7k pounds (~3 tonnes) & more frequently don't transfer any fuel at all. These token offloads are typical for training.

As we're based in New Mexico, we wouldn't schedule AAR with a unit much further east than, say, McConnell. I'm fairly certain there aren't too many KC-135E west of the Mississippi! (if any at all - anyone got a listing of where all these E-models are??)

As mentioned, I haven't seen an E-model in ages...


Back to topic - if I were king, I'd select the best tanker with the most capability. If that happened to be a plane that was principally built outside of my country & I was concerned about the future viability of my aerospace industry, I would have them build the new tanker under license somehow. Might not always be a viable solution, but it sure beats flat out subsidies & handouts. The end goal being to build & maintain a certain level of capability and expertise for future whilst still delivering the best product for the military...

...apparently, I live in utopia as well.:E

[Graybeard]

Pulfrew: "No it doesn't. First you need 170+ second hand aircraft to be available - which they aren't. Then you need to bring them to the same standard. Then you need to modify them to KC configuration. And how long would it actually take to buy up 179 second hand aircraft (even if they are/were available) and convert them?"

Since we're talking a converted 767, there are some available immediately, and most of them will eventually become available, as it's not popular for cargo, due to its different fuselage tube. "As of December 2006, total orders for -200/200ER stand at 249." That provides a significant supply. Other than engine choices, 95% of airline configuration differences are interiors, which get stripped out anyhow.

10 Tanker is converting their second DC-10 to firefighting, with a 12,000 gallon canoe on the keel, and it will be done in four months, start to finish. Conversions can be done at various MROs in the US and around the world, simultaneously.

When would the first A330 tanker be available? How quickly would all 179 get delivered? What happens when the next large hurricane hits Mobile?

"And as has been pointed out many times on this thread, you then have to replace them again in 10 years time. With what? And at what cost? You have to just start the whole process again."

As has been pointed out in another post, the AAR mission is diminished, as we don't have B-52s flying 'round the clock anymore. We'll have fewer manned fighters to refuel, also. There are 20 B-2, and 59 KC-10A, a seemingly adequate ratio. In 10 years time there will be even less need for AAR. Considering the few hours flown by tankers, used 767s, DC-10s, A310s, and MD-11s would last almost indefinitely.

"Second hand aircraft may make a viable proposition to an airline or charter outfit that cannot afford new, however, it just doesn't make sense with a capability you want to last for another 20, 30 or 40 years."

Technology is progressing faster than ever. Why be tied to obsolete airframes for 20 or 40 years? Besides, it's not "can't afford," it's dollars and sense. Fedex and UPS are wealthy, fly schedules where on time arrival is more critical than for pax airlines, and they buy used when available.

The tanker is a tool, not a toy that has to be new and shiny.

GB

[Graybeard]

My Quote:
"Planes designed for the military are often worn out or obsolete in several thousand hours."

Pulfrew: "Well by your own examples that doesn't apply to the USAF KC135 fleet which have already lasted 40+ years, does it? :ugh::ugh::ugh: That would be because........ they were bought new, maintained well, upgraded when necessary and have a low hours utilization in comparison to airline usage."

If they keep flying at the same rate, the first KC-135 will hit its modest airframe life limit of 39,000 hours in 2040. It's already been obsolete for about 30 years. That's why all the upgrades have been needed.

BTW, buying used will please neither Airbus nor Boeing. It just means less pain for the taxpayers, and less profit for the Washington DC lobbyists.

GB

[Jig Peter]

Reading today's flioghtblogger & other reports, there's a big demand for any 2nd-hand widebodies as both A & B have long line-ups, with the nearest free slots well into the next decade, while the latest 787 delays have made the market even tighter. So for the next few years, there just ain't goin' to be anything available to satisfy the "give 'em old & used aircraft" believers ...

[Graybeard]

From GeeRam, #200:
-----
A quick Google suggests as of Mar08

767 = 24
DC10/MD-11 = 11

I suspect that's airworthy/active rather than what may or may not be in deep store/reclamation out in one of the desert boneyards...?
-------

The 767 isn't quite a widebody, is it? Is it a tight market for all widebodies, or only the long range ones? A 767 non-ER becomes very long range when you add the AAR tanks.

The USAF isn't expecting to receive the first operational KC-45 until, when, 2013? They could have a whole lot of used 767 converted to tankers before that.

The details of the IAI 767 for the Colombian AF would be interesting. It wouldn't surprise me to see IAI submitting an unsolicited bid to the USAF.

GB

[ORAC]

Applying a bit of common sense/economics. The price of second hand 767s might be low because of the number of bidders. As soon as anyone knew the USAF wanted 170+, the second hand price would go through the roof, undoubtedly far in excess (with a suitable lead time) of new A330s. Supply and demand and all that.

They could, of course, at that stage, ask Boeing about new build airframes - which would take us back to the starting point.....

The USA got themselves into this situation when they reduced their industry down to only Boeing as a major airframe/tanker manufacturer. They either had to accept them as a single supplier with an absolute say over price or change the rules to allow EADS to bid. They did so. If they now change the rules to give the contract to Boeing, they can expect to pay untold billions to Boeing for the KC-Y and KCV-Z competitions, as there will be no point in EDS bidding. (Ignoring suing for getting their costs back on the KC-X competion bid).

[BEagle]

Huh?

Boeing sold the 767 as having "The widest economy seat ans aisle combination of any widebody airplane available today".

Although, of course the A310 has a wider body with the same 222 in fuselage cross-section as the A330.

Now, the non-ER 767s have wing tanks only (50.5 tonnes) and the -ERs also have centre tanks of 11.9 - 22.5 tonnes. The KC-767A was supposed to have a further 18.6 tonnes in additional centre tanks, for a total of around 91.6 tonnes. But the additional center tanks feed into the center tank - so without that you're pretty well stuffed trying to turn old 767 non-ERs into acceptable AAR aircraft.

Unlike firebombers, AAR aircraft do NOT have specific 'AAR tanks' - the whole fuel system is used for both receiver and tanker requirements.

[ORAC]

As an aside - after the problems the RAF found in building internal tanks for the purchased old VC-1s, and the wings for the Nimrod. If they USAF bought second hand 767s, how "bespoke" are the airframes, and would they be able to mass manufacture new centre line tanks? or would the costs, after the lessons of trying to fit the second set, escalate out of existence? :ouch:

[D-IFF_ident]

Beagle's last sentence reminded me of a point from history, when tankers did not necessarily give away their own fuel only - how easy would it be to isolate a fuel tank on the KC45 should any receiver want, say, JP7 to be passed down the boom?

[ORAC]

IIRC the only tankers which isolated the tanks for the receiver in order to carry a separate type was the KC-135Q/T (for the SR-71).

The down side for the conversion is that the receiver fuel now becomes pure cargo, limiting tanker range/offload flexibility, giving requirements to be able to have separate fuel dump and measuring systems etc.

I am sure it could be done if necessary - and the KC-45s greater capacity would allow the carriage of a greater combined total, retaining as much as possible of the original performance figures.

[MarkD]

The USA got themselves into this situation when they reduced their industry down to only Boeing as a major airframe/tanker manufacturer.And now they have a chance to have a second, and a freighter line, and some of their leading politicians and commentators are turning it down. Strange people.

[Graybeard]

Yes, BEagle, Boeing touted the 2-3-2 seating in the 767 as putting no SLF more than one seat away from an aisle.

It wouldn't take much of a genius to make tanks that slide into the cargo compartments in non-ER 767s. As most know, ferry tanks have been built and used routinely to get short range airliners across long distances, such as to Hawaii. The lower gross weight of the non -ER 200 would have to be considered, however.

As for JP-7, I've seen McDoug promo videos of SR-71 offloads from the KC-10A. At the same time, they advertise the KC-10A as being able to burn from the offload fuel.

The KC-10A were first fitted with wing baskets just a few years after delivery from McD. It wasn't a big deal. The boom control, btw, is an MD-80 Digital Flight Guidance Computer.

Also in yesterday's news: three Airbus lobbyists are on McCain's campaign staff. So much for technical prowess being the driver of the contract award. You can expect Hillary or Obama, our next president, to cripple the EADS tanker deal next year if it isn't already dead by then.

Historical perspective: Just before the 1976 election, the CEO of Rockwell published a nasty letter to all employees about candidate Jimmy Carter. Sure enough, Carter canceled the Rockwell B-1A. Reagan revived it four years later as the B-1B. It never has been very useful, AFAIK.

GB

[BEagle]

Leaving your politics aside (I wish you lot would just get on with it and stop boring the rest of the world with your tedious election system), the simple fact is that there is no 'simple' solution!

Ferry tanks for an airliner have to support a burn rate of around 75 kg/min. However, a dual hose tanker has to offload fuel at 2500 kg/min. So unless there is a centre tank which is kept topped up from other tanks, or there is a high flowrate fuel dump gallery which can be tapped into, a few 'cargo bay' ferry tanks are of little use. Particularly if they reduce the cargo carrying capability of the aircraft - only an idiot would buy a single role tanker!

Fitting pods to the McDonnell-Douglas KC-10 and the Boeing KC-135 was far from being 'no big deal'. It took them a long time to sort out the aerodynamics, something which took Boeing even longer on its stillborn Frankentanker.

The A330MRTT doesn't need any extra fuel tanks. I'm not sure, but it might have a modified internal transfer system, as does the A310MRTT. The success of the A310MRTT programme wasn't lost on the KC-X selectors, neither was the success of the KC-30B or the A310 Boom Demonstrator test aircraft.

The USAF have said that they don't want the tanker programme delayed by whining politicians and fatcat lawyers bleating about why Boeing lost so comprehensively. I just hope that this point will be made again and again.

Hillary or Obama for your next president? Do me a favour....:\

[Graybeard]

MarkD, weren't you the one disparaging the 767 cockpit as being steam gauges like the DC-10? Wrong..

The 767 has a common cockpit and common avionics with the 757, with extensive use of digital data busses, Arinc 429. It has been the basis of all subsequent cockpits, having 6 tubes for flight and engine displays.
In fact, the 747-400 cockpit was only refined from the 757/767 standard, having larger CRTs. Most of the same stuff was used in the 737-300 and later, up to where it adopted the 777 cockpit components.

Outfits such as IS&S are retrofitting 767s, etc., with new large format displays in place of the original EFIS, and they do it in just a few days.

Except for instances of new applications, avionics boxes for Comm, Nav, Identification from the newer generation planes plug right into the 767, thanks to Arinc (Aeronautical Radio, Inc.) standards.

The 757/767 triplex Cat IIIb/Cat IIIc autoland is legendary. The Flight Control Computer was modernized for the 747-400. Being backfittable, the new one became standard on 767 new production. Boeing demonstrated autoland in a 767 with the new computer, in a 35 knot crosswind -- on one engine.

That same Flight Control Computer is in the 777. Except for interiors, when something works, commercial aircraft stick wtih it. New and shiny is not usually compatible with most bang for the buck.

GB

[Jetex Jim]

ORACAs an aside - after the problems the RAF found in building internal tanks for the purchased old VC-1s, and the wings for the Nimrod. If they USAF bought second hand 767s, how "bespoke" are the airframes, and would they be able to mass manufacture new centre line tanks? or would the costs, after the lessons of trying to fit the second set, escalate out of existence?

Interesting question, but I think Boeing have always tended to build in tooling, rather than against chalk marks on the hanger floor...

[West Coast]

I wish you lot would just get on with it and stop boring the rest of the world with your tedious election system

Vote with your remote control then. You do have control of what you watch still don't you or has the happy face of socialism fixed that for you as well?

It's time for Boeing to cowboy up and admit it lost. Beagle, you better pray that McCain wins or your pay check may be in peril.

[glad rag]

Greybeard, you are walter kennedy and I claim my £10....:ooh:

[Graybeard]

Umm, who is Walter Kennedy? What does he, or I, have to do with ten pounds? I don't even have that funny symbol on my keyboard.. !@#$%^&*()_+{}|<>?

GB

[BEagle]

As an example of the folly of using old secondhand airliners as tankers, consider the VC10K4.

These were Vickers Super VC10s bought from ba after they airline acquired its 747s. They then sat around in far from desert-dry conditions for years and years until they were ferried to Filton to be modified - at typically high BWoS prices - into VC10K4 tankers.

I collected ZD230 from Filton on 15 Dec 1994. This was an historic aircraft as it had been the prototype Super VC10 - it still had the structural reinforcement for the trials anti-spin parachute mortar left over from the 1960s.

Twelve years later the RAF scrapped it. What a complete and utter waste of money the project had been. And a sad end to a very nice aeroplane.....:{

If, instead, the MoD had bought the new A310MRTTs BWoS Filton had proposed at around that time, they would undoubtedly still have 20 years of life left in them today...:ugh:


Oh - and graybeard, 'Walter Kennedy' is a contributor to the 'Chinook' thread at the top of the Mil. forum. Despite being told many times that his theory of SEALS scuttling about on the Mull of Kintyre with wacky wirlesses luring the Chinook to disaster like some latter day Sirens is complete nonsense, he persists with his one man crusade.

As for £10 - I wouldn't be so quick to kiss that off. £10 buys quite a lot of Yankee dollar$ these days...;)

[Brain Potter]

BEagle - ZD235 was even less value for money. It must have only served for about 6 years, and was scrapped to save the cost of it's (first?) major servicing. Rumour has it that better airfames were cut up for spares whilst this one was converted.

[Graybeard]

The only evidence you've provided with that last post, BEagle is that governments are incompetent - all of them. Some are just worse than others. When the measure of success is the size of the budget, rather than profit and loss, stupidity will reign.

Has anybody seen the order book for the A330 freighter?

Thanks for the elucidation on Walter Kennedy, and yes, I know the value of our worthless dollar. That's why it is even more painful to subsize EU countries with our tax dollars, buying new and shiny when used is a better value.

At the end of 2000, an ounce of gold ($270) would buy about ten barrels of oil. It still does.

While I'm typing, you misunderstood my comments about ferry tanks. I was not recommending ferry tanks for retrofitting into lower cargo pits of 767s, but new custom size tanks that could be slid in via existing cargo doors and attached semi-permanently. The max rate of transfer can be whatever is designed in.

Tanker retrofits have been done on the 767, and on DC10s, the KDC-10.

GB

[knowitall]

"That's why it is even more painful to subsize EU countries with our tax dollars, buying new and shiny when used is a better value."

yes but in this case used clearly isn't better value, your adoption of the "fingers in ears, la la la, i'm not listening" approach to the debate won't change that fact

New builds are better value over the WHOLE LIFE of the aircraft, thats true fiscal responsibility


oh and we know there "tools not toys" so spare patronising twadle

[Brain Potter]

Graybeard,

I think that BEagle was trying to illustrate what happens when governments regard buying tankers as a low priority and go down the route of secondhand conversions. The RAF has suffered from this attitude and has traditionally had to "make-do and mend" with aircraft that were procured for other roles (V-bombers) or that it suited the government to foist on them for their own reasons.

Unless you can find a single-source of right number of secondhand aircraft, all originally ordered by the same airline, you will end up with a hotch-potch of different versions. The RAF managed to end up with 4 different types of VC10 and 3 different types of TriStar in a fleet of less than 30. This makes tasking, training, maintenance and fleet managment so much more difficult. The numbers that USAF require would make a secondhand fleet a total nightmare.

Fitting extra fuel tanks is something that is easy to propose, but hard to sucessfully achieve. A permanent installation may severely limit the aircraft's ability to be used as a transport asset and I haven't yet seen a successful temporary fit. The extra fuel tanks in the VC10 made them a single-role aircraft and the TriStar was given too much fuel capacity, which degraded it's flexibilty as a transport.

Your argument that the low utilization rate of tankers does not require a new-build fleet would carry more weight if the aircraft were intended solely for AAR and were going to spend their time on alert, like the KC-135 fleet did for the first half of it's life. However, KC-X is instrumental in the modernization of AMC and will be utilized at a much higher rate in the transport role.

The USAF top ranks said many times that this aircraft will have to do more, at a higher rate, than it's predecessors. Unlike their counterparts in the UK, they seem to realize that their next generation tanker/transport is in many ways more important than other, "sexier", projects.

In the UK we have often had to lament the fact that our forces have been provided with inferior, but home-built, equipment. However, on the occasions that we have bought American equipment I have never heard it described as "subsidizing" the US - we were just glad to have the best kit and didn't care from whence it came.

The KC-30 is a superior aircraft to the KC-767 and the US Forces will benefit from this decison.

[Graybeard]

"The USAF top ranks said many times that this aircraft will have to do more, at a higher rate, than it's predecessors."

By what rationale will it have to do more than the KC-10A, which hauls more than the A330? How many hours are the KC-10 fleet getting now?

GB

[brickhistory]

the B-1B. It never has been very useful, AFAIK.


And that, sir, says it all.

If you don't know this then any of your posts relating to buying 'used' are just as feeble.

You refuse to listen to those who have 'been there, done that' including the USAF and the RAF.

'Used' simply doesn't save money/time/effort.

[MarkD]

Graybeard - if all used 762s available for refit are so fitted, then I stand corrected. I was not referring to new build 767s in that post.

[Bevo]

Posted at this link:

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/pdf/executive_summary.pdf

[Brain Potter]

GB,

I believe that rationale requiring the KC-X to do "more" than it's predecessors means that it will not just be a basic tanker like the KC-135s it is replacing. The KC-45 will be a combined AT/AAR asset, adding more airlift capability to AMC and complementing the KC-10. I don't think that anyone said that it will carry more in one sortie than the KC-10, but it is expected to achieve a higher utilization rate, increasing the impact that it makes.

The KC-45 will be network-enabled, contributing to the overall ISTAR effort and it will be fully equipped for the aeromed mission - something that has traditionally been the domain of T-tails. Moreover, as neither the cargo area nor the cabin have been compromised to achieve greater fuel capacity it will be easier to use in the pax-carrying role. So perhaps it can be seen as doing "more"?

The point about KC-10 flying hours is interesting. Are you implying that the KC-10 utilization rate is already so high that the the KC-45 won't be able to exceed it? Bearing in mind that this was a new-build fleet, anything other than a very low utilization rate adds further weight to the argument that a secondhand fleet is a bad idea. Or are you saying that the KC-10 is underworked?

[Graybeard]

The A330 will have to get a new, longer nose gear housed in a blister, as you must know, to enable it to sit level on the ramp for cargo ops. Therefore, the A330 was not originally designed for cargo.

Potter wrote, "..neither the cargo area nor the cabin have been compromised to achieve greater fuel capacity.." Then where does the tanker fuel go?

Yes, I would like to know the utilization of the KC-10 fleet. They are based in just two places, which would not make sense if they are getting varied use. I was up close and personal with them when they were new and shiny, however.

The USAF has relied on commercial operators for hauling most of the troops and cargo since at least the mid 1960s. There is no way AMC can haul at lower cost, using $200 Million tankers.

I have a commercial background, not AF. My military time was with missiles that would knock down the hostiles, so I may have the wrong impression about the B-1B. It makes the news only when it gobbles a gaggle of geese. The B-52 does carpet bombing, and the B-2 has the glamour, but the B-1B is ignored for whatever reason. The reason I brought it up was to show that President Obama will undoubtedly cripple or cancel the KC-30/45, just as Pres. Carter canceled the B-1A.

No, Obama is not a good choice. Neither are the other two. Every election cycle I think the choice can't be worse than the last time. . then it is. We even got the worse of the pair the last two times.

Skimming through the Boeing rebuttal, the chiefs in the USAF will be fortunate if they can keep their jobs after such a flawed and skewed selection process. That rebuttal is written in refreshingly blunt language.

The proposed provenance of the first six KC-30 is a hoot. Who's going to build them, gitanos?

IOC in 2013? Deliveries of used 767s could begin next year.

GB

[GreenKnight121]

Skimming through the Boeing rebuttal, the chiefs in the USAF will be fortunate if they can keep their jobs after such a flawed and skewed selection process. That rebuttal is written in refreshingly blunt language.

If the points in the rebuttal are correct, that is.


Potter wrote, "..neither the cargo area nor the cabin have been compromised to achieve greater fuel capacity.." Then where does the tanker fuel go?

Most tankers carry the extra fuel tanks in the under-floor area... what was used as baggage compartments on passenger-equipped civilian aircraft. This area is not counted in either the "cargo" or "cabin" definitions, as it is under the floor of the cabin and cannot be used for bulk or palletized cargo. The larger under-deck volume of the A330 (due to longer & wider fuselage) is a major part of its greater fuel capacity.

Military passengers in a cargo aircraft put their baggage in the main compartment... I did flying to/from the Philippines and Japan in C-141s in 1984.

[ORAC]

All the fuel for the KC-45 is carried in the wet wing (111K Kgs) and tail. Airbus have qualified additional centre-line tanks (for the A310 MRTT), but they're not fitted.

The need for additional tanks was a mark against the bidder in the competition.

[Brain Potter]

Yes, the A330 was not originally designed for cargo - but the KC-45 is capable of carrying 26 NATO pallets on the main deck and 6 more in the hold.

Then where does the tanker fuel go?

The KC-45 simply uses the aircraft's own tanks to provide 111 tonnes of fuel capacity. No extra fuel tanks are fitted, and hence the cabin and holds remain available. Although I guess that some of the aft hold has been used for the boom and hose-drum installation.

The USAF has relied on commercial operators for hauling most of the troops and cargo since at least the mid 1960s. There is no way AMC can haul at lower cost, using $200 Million tankers.

So what do all those T-tails do then? Supplemented by the KC-10, which spends a good deal of it's time engaged in the airlift mission. Yes, most of the people moving will continue to be done by contract, but if you need to go directly into theatre, protected by a DAS, then a 280-seat KC-45 is more efficient than a 102-seat C-17. That particular mission is not about cost but about capability. As is the 120-stretcher aeromed fit.

The new president may well try to cancel the order - but what will that achieve? The competion will have to be re-run because, unlike the controversy with the B-1A, the debate is not about whether the programme itself should continue; the requirement for a replacement aircraft is not disputed. The objections appear to be purely based on parochial self-interest and not on achieving the best capability or value-for-money. What will Boeing do differently if the competition is re-opened? Will they offer a KC-777 or a KC-787? Surely on the basis of mission performance, the KC-767 would just lose again.

Graybeard, your assumptions about the work done by the B-1B and the KC-10 reveals that you are somewhat lacking in knowledge of current operations and the role of tanker-transport aircraft. Surely by now you can acknowledge that everyone with relevant experience regards the notion that KC-X programme could be fulfilled by a bunch of secondhand 767s (beginning next year!) as risible.

[brickhistory]

The B-52 does carpet bombing, and the B-2 has the glamour, but the B-1B is ignored for whatever reason.

Might I suggest your memories would be better suited in the aviation nostalgia forum?

The same holds true for your knowledge of KC-10 ops. I can assure you they are no longer 'shiny and new,' but overstretched, worn out and constantly on the go. Simply because they have only two home bases has no bearing on their operations, they're just places to park the crews' families because the jets and crews are very rarely there.

[D-IFF_ident]

I've just got through reading the Boeing protest. It reads to me like a complaint from an ex-wife who has recently been replaced by a younger model. There is little about the ways in which Boeing considers it's product to be better, and lots about how they've always been the prefered manufacturer before, so they should be now. Generally lacking in substance, but heavy on the guilt-trip, the greatest threat to the defence of the 'warfighter and the American people' would be if this emotive piece of twaddle delays the introduction of the weapons system by even a single day.

Meanwhile, IMHO, that an AT/AAR asset can provide global support from only 2 bases is surely testimony to its capabilities? A less capable asset would need more distributed MOBs to satisfy similar demands. :cool:

[Flight Safety]

I'm not sure why we're still debating the selection.

The USAF RFP should have read, "We're replacing the venerable old KC-135Es. Offer us a bigger and better tanker." Since larger aircraft always offer more airlift, then the KC-45 wins hands down. End of debate.

Or is it really that simple?

I recall that NG/EADS almost quit the KC-X competitiion because the original RFP was not to their liking. Who threatens to walk out on a possible $40 billion dollar contract? Then the RFP was changed, and now they're the winner. Yep, a bigger tanker is always a better tanker. :ugh:

[Art Field]

A bigger tanker is always a better tanker

Not always so by any means. Only two receivers require top-up, fine, but multiple receivers on different missions in different places at the same time means more tankers. But the only tankers are big ones requiring big support facilities and probably being underused as each task does not often require full fuel loads. There is an ideal balance between size of tanker, number of tankers, anticipated tasking and affordability. The choice is, of course, further confused by introducing the Transport element because there, size will tend to prevail.

[Squirrel 41]

... are one thing, but this Boeing response is quite another. In fact, it's amongst the most amusing things I've read in ages! Bravo, Boeing!

For example on pg. 3:

"Furthermore, the Air Force's actions show that it altogether failed to comprehend the inherent manufacturing genius of the 767 bid. It gave Boeing no credit for offering exactly what the US Government acquisition strategy seeks: a low-risk, high value proven baseline commercial aircraft, which Boeing proposed to modify to RFP specifications using an established in-line production process."

Hmm... So exactly how many 767-200/300/400 hybrids are currently in airline service then? :hmm: I can think of quite a few A330-200s, though.... and 66 A330-200Fs entering service in 2009. :)

I can completely understand that Boeing is disappointed / pi:mad:ed off / whatever about losing KC-X; but this document does them no favours at all. Bottom line: the USAF and the US taxpayer have used competition to get themselves a technically superior product at a lower price from a keener supplier - and Boeing's self-congratulatory spin won't change that.

S41

[Flight Safety]

Very interesting reading on what the DOD/USAF originally wanted in a KC-135 replacement, and why they wanted it.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34398.pdf

This report was prepared by the Federation of American Scientists, participating in the Congressional Research Service, and submitted to members of Congress on Feb 28th, 2008. It's 41 pages long but an easy read, and it covers all the major selection criteria.

[Flight Safety]

How NG/EADS worked itself into the game. It mostly centered on "weighted values" for cargo and passenger capacity (i.e. in favor of a bigger airplane).

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/01/02/211334/final-rfp-awaited-for-kc-x.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/01/26/211758/us-air-force-to-release-kc-x-rfp-tuesday-northrop-braced-to-withdraw-from.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/06/211944/usaf-stands-its-ground-with-final-kc-x-request-risking-northrop-a330-based-kc-30-withdrawal-from.html

[ORAC]

How NG/EADS worked itself into the game. Rather, how the DoD persuaded NG/EADS to spend the money to develop/enter a bid so that they didn't have Boeing as the sole bidder. And having done so, they can hardly complain if they win on merit on the criteria stated...

[henry crun]

A different American view of the Boeing protest. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/356033_gaotanker22.html