PPRuNe Forums - Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)

- - Northrup Grumman/EADS win USAF tanker bid (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/315624-northrup-grumman-eads-win-usaf-tanker-bid.html)

Boeing to protest KC-X

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...f-debrief.html

Quote:

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.

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.

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:

Some more insight into the recent USAF tanker selection here. :)

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/bu...hp&oref=slogin

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

Quote:

....

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.”

.....

"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...030603752.html

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

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

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

Quote:

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.

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

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

Quote:

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

"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

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...s/tanker26.gif

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

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...%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..

Unaffordable Cargo Hauler

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.....

"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

Watch CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" tonight

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

Graybeard

You are grasping at straws.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

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