KC-X RFP Mk II (merged)

[ORAC]

AWST (Ares): USAF KC-X Bid Deadline Extended 60 Days

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

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

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

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

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

EADS Statement Regarding KC-X Proposal Deadline Extension

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

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

[ORAC]

AW&ST (Ares): Tanked Up



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

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

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

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

[Algy]

EADS to compete for USAF tanker

Game on again...

EADS press release:

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

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

[ORAC]

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

AW&ST: EADS Is Officially Prime On KC-X Bid

[Flyt3est]

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

[BEagle]

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

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

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

[Flyt3est]

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

[Less Hair]

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

[ORAC]

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

[knowitall]

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

when are the next set of congress/senate elections?

[Spadhampton]

Boeing will get the contract....

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

[Rigga]

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

[GreenKnight121]

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

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

Eventually, the USAF canceled the Lockheed tanker altogether.


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




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

[BEagle]

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

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

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

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

[Trumpet_trousers]

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

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

[Graybeard]

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

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

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

GB

[knowitall]

"Two modified 757s for every KC-x"

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


meanwhile back on planet earth......

[BEagle]

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

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

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

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

[Graybeard]

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

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

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

GB

[knowitall]

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

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

"saw some 757 parked at KVCV just yesterday"

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