The USAF Tanker Replacement Programs- Merged

[Armymatters]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060414/bs_nm/arms_usa_tankers_dc_2
It's a basic competition between EADS (with their Airbus A330 MRTT design) and Boeing (with their KC767 design). Even though EADS has the better design, they have a really poor chance of winning, due the the fact that the EADS is perceived as part French, if you ask me.

 

[aesop081]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060414/bs_nm/arms_usa_tankers_dc_2
It's a basic competition between EADS (with their Airbus A330 MRTT design) and Boeing (with their KC767 design). Even though EADS has the better design, they have a really poor chance of winning, due the the fact that the EADS is perceived as part French, if you ask me.

You want to back that up with any facts ?  What leads you to beleive that one design is better than the other ?  Are you an AAR expert now too ?

:

 

[Armymatters]

You want to back that up with any facts ?  What leads you to beleive that one design is better than the other ?  Are you an AAR expert now too ?

:

The EADS Airbus A330 MRTT has better range, increased fuel capacity without sacrificing main deck space, can carry main deck pallets, can be converted quickly into a troop carrier for 300 soldiers, and is on paper, the better airplane, and quite a few other air forces agree, namely, the Australians and the British, when they had a chance to compare the KC767 and A330 MRTT. Also, the USAF is believed to favour a tanker that can also act as a package freighter, to reduce the demand on their C-5 and C-17 fleets. Also, remember, the previous USAF order for the KC767 was tainted by a major scandal, with bribery suspected, and it lead to the resignation of then Boeing CEO Phil Condit.

 

[teddy49]

The story makes no mention of the Air Force's KC-10 tankers.  They're no spring chickens either, but they certainly are newer than 45 years old.  They can also carry palletized freight.  I don't imagine the AF would want to give up that capability to buy American.  But despite the Pan-European ownership, Airbuses are built in France, which can't help them politically in the states.

As an aside, I briefly worked with a guy who used to me a Maintenance Supervisor for US Air at LaGuardia in New York.  He said that at the time, the Airbuses broke a lot more than the Boeing airframes.  Not sure what the specific problems were, just that the Airbuses were spending a lot more time in unscheduled maintenance.

 

[Armymatters]

The story makes no mention of the Air Force's KC-10 tankers.  They're no spring chickens either, but they certainly are newer than 45 years old.  They can also carry palletized freight.  I don't imagine the AF would want to give up that capability to buy American.  But despite the Pan-European ownership, Airbuses are built in France, which can't help them politically in the states.

As an aside, I briefly worked with a guy who used to me a Maintenance Supervisor for US Air at LaGuardia in New York.  He said that at the time, the Airbuses broke a lot more than the Boeing airframes.  Not sure what the specific problems were, just that the Airbuses were spending a lot more time in unscheduled maintenance.

EADS will be shipping the airframes, once they are in a state to fly, to Alabama for final fitting and flight certification. Besides, with how Boeing is now building their jets, their products can be hardly called American as well. For example, with the Boeing 777, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries produces the fuselage panels, and Fuji Heavy Industries produces the center wing section. Airbus is offering by value more than 55% American contents, and has teamed up with Northrop Grumman for additional Americanization of the A330.

Boeing is right now in doubt over continued production of the Boeing 767, if no major orders come through, military or commercial. Boeing is thinking of shutting down that line in favour for increased production of their more popular types, the 777 and the 787, and with the 767 gone, Boeing will pretty much have to develop a new tanker from scratch off the other designs. A KC-777 will be too big, and will be more of a KC-10 replacement, and the 787 is unsuitable for military applications, according to Boeing. Airbus is unpalatable for Congress due to the perceived French factor, and the KC-135E's need to be either replaced or rebuilt. Tough call right now on the new tankers.

What I am thinking is that the Pentagon might just split the order for both small and medium sized tankers between Airbus and Boeing, if this report that has reached the Pentagon makes any sense:
http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1141771925.html

 

[geo]

Hmmm..... replace one fleet with two fleets that equal the original one....... AND carry twice as many inventory parts? am sure some Log wog will scream to high heaven!!

 

[Armymatters]

Hmmm..... replace one fleet with two fleets that equal the original one....... AND carry twice as many inventory parts? am sure some Log wog will scream to high heaven!!

Well, from my vantage point (which isn't that good admitly, but I will venture a guess), such a proposal will work like this:
Boeing will be tasked to develop a KC-737, based off the Boeing 737-800 airframe (of which the USN will be using extensively in their P-8 MMA's) for a tactical tanker, where cargo capability is less important. This will replace the bulk of the KC-135's in service. Since such a tanker will share parts commonality with the P-8 MMA, and to a lesser extent, the C-40 Clipper (it is a Boeing 737-700 Combi jet), so parts for it will be already there for the most part.

Airbus will be tasked for providing a larger, multi-role tanker that is more of a strategic tanker (the Airbus A330 MRTT). It will be mainly tasked for more strategic roles, such as dragging fighters off to distant bases with their equipment, and for filling up strategic lifters and bombers.

 

[geo]

still means having to carry twice as many parts.
doesn't sound like a good idea (plan) ...... and a strategic headache

IMHO

 

[Armymatters]

still means having to carry twice as many parts.
doesn't sound like a good idea (plan) ...... and a strategic headache

IMHO

Well, they are kinda doing it right now, with the current fleet of tankers. The KC-135E's (which are due for replacement in this tanker order) are using the Pratt TF-33 low bypass turbofans, while the slightly newer KC-135R's are using CFM-56's hi-bypass turbofans. If done properly, managing two fleets of different jets can be easily done.

 

[big bad john]

Thw "Stars and Stripes" take on the start up.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AIR_FORCE_TANKERS?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Air Force tanker program to start up again

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press Writer



 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon said Monday it has given the Air Force authority to resume a program for buying aerial-refueling planes that has been on hold since 2004.

The announcement directs the Air Force to start a competition that is likely to pit The Boeing Co. against a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and the parent of European jet maker Airbus SAS.

A contract for the multibillion-dollar project - which Boeing has held for decades - could be awarded as soon as next year.

Chicago-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004 amid revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who had given the company preferential treatment.

 

 
The deal would have allowed the Air Force to buy or lease 100 Boeing 767 planes for use as tankers, but Congress killed it. The Air Force had said for more than a year that it was likely to reopen the deal to competition.

Under Monday's announcement, a request for information is expected to be issued by the end of April, with a draft request for proposal expected this fall and a final proposal due in January.

The contract is expected to be awarded in the summer of 2007, the Pentagon said.

Pentagon officials have said they are aware a new tanker program will face close scrutiny because of the scandal.


 
"We must ensure that this program models a traditional competitive acquisition program, and that every step proceeds in a deliberate and transparent fashion," Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said in a statement.

Earlier this year, a report for the Air Force determined that there are a number of medium to large commercial-based aircraft that can meet the tanker program's needs to refuel planes in flight.

The report, conducted by the Rand Corp., said commercial planes built by Boeing and Airbus are the most cost-effective candidates for conversion to aerial-refueling tankers.

Acceptable aircraft include the Boeing 747, 767, 777 and 787, and the Airbus 330 and 340, the report said. The report recommended that the Pentagon weigh other factors besides economics to determine how quickly to solicit bids.

The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., which owns 80 percent of Airbus, has said it plans to team with Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman to produce a new generation of refueling tankers. The contract could be worth at least $20 billion.

Spokesman Randy Belote said Northrop Grumman welcomed the opportunity to respond to the upcoming request for information.

"We are confident that the KC-30 produced by Northrop Grumman and our teammate EADS North America will provide the Air Force with a versatile multi-role tanker transport system that meets or exceeds their requirements," Belote said.

A spokeswoman for Boeing said the company was pleased the process was moving forward.

"We feel confident that we will be ready for the competition. We look forward to it," said spokeswoman Kerry Gildea.

---

On the Net:

Boeing http://www.boeing.com

Northrop Grumman: http://www.northropgrumman.com/

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

 

[Sherwood4459]

This is most likely a stupid question but can't they make a tanker out of the C-17? 

Is price the many reason?

It may cost twice as much, but would you have to buy less aircraft? 

 

[Armymatters]

This is most likely a stupid question but can't they make a tanker out of the C-17? 

Is price the many reason?

It may cost twice as much, but would you have to buy less aircraft? 

There was a proposal to turn the C-17 into a tanker, but that was scrapped due to the incrediably high costs and the early delays of the C-17, as stated here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/PAB.htm

The next option, acquisition of a C-17 tanker, may be dubbed the "gold-plated giant." The C-17 is cost prohibitive in fiscal terms and in manpower requirements.  Furthermore, while technologically feasible, a tanker variant has not been developed. Research and development costs would be in addition to the 300 million dollar unit cost of the baseline C-17. This amount  dwarfs the 35 million dollar fly-away cost of Lockheed's updated C-130 "T Plus." Additionally,  the C-17 provides strategic inter-theater mobility which is a role much different from and well outside the purview of the KC-130 tactical  intra-theater assault support mission.

The report was by the US Marine Corps, and as you can see, they have dubbed such a propsal as a "Gold-plated giant".

It is more economical to convert civilian airliners to a tanker, due to the low cost of commerical airliners. For example, the Airbus A330 has a per unit cost of $139.6 to $145.5 million dollars American. And that is the "list price" of the airplane, of which no one pays, as prices are usually much lower and are usually kept secret. Anyways, it is significantly less than the per unit cost of the C-17. Factor in developmental costs to convert either one to a tanker, and a civilian airliner wins hands down in terms of price.

 

[Kirkhill]

This time it is the USAF that is involved though and it is for 20 Billion in Air to Air Tankers.

...Los Angeles-based Northrop, prime contractor of a team with the North American unit of Europe's EADS, cited draft bidding guidelines it described as favoring Chicago-based Boeing.

"If threshold and objective criteria are not clearly identified for key tanker requirements, and cost-to-capability, best-value evaluation metrics are not included in the final RFP, Northrop Grumman feels the KC-30 will be non-competitive and we will not bid," said Randy Belote, a company spokesman.

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/airforce/Northrop_renews_threat_to_quit_US_tanker_contest100010026.php

I am starting to detect a pattern.

 

[tomahawk6]

The USAF needs to select the KC-767 right now and in three year's switch to the KC-777. The USAF operates 2 types of tankers the 737 and the KC-10 so I dont see a problem with two tanker types.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/articles/20070131.aspx

January 31, 2007: The U.S. Air Force is still looking for aircraft to replace over 500 aging ( 40 years old, or older) KC-135 tankers. At the moment, there are three prime candidates. The leading one is the KC-767, which is already been selected by Italy and Japan. This aircraft is based on the Boeing 767-200 airliner, which sells for about $120 million. Boeing developed the KC-767, at a cost of nearly a billion dollars, on its own. Boeing also developed the original KC-135 tanker in the 1950s. All 732 KC-135s were built between 1956 and 1965. 

Over the decades, the KC-135 fleet has undergone constant repair and reconstruction. New engines, and new structural components have been added, as older items wore out, or showed signs of wearing out. Currently, some 40 percent of the KC-135s are out of action for maintenance problems. In theory, an aircraft can be continually rebuilt and kept in flying condition. But the air force, and some commercial air lines, are finding that the maintenance problems multiply and become unpredictable as the aircraft get older and, after a while, the downtime for maintenance is more trouble than it's worth. For example, the hundred oldest KC-135s spend an average of 80 days a year undergoing major repairs. However, when you do the math, you find that overhauling and maintaining the current KC-135 fleet would be about $10 billion cheaper than buying new 767s.  There is risk in keeping 40 year old aircraft flying, but the safety record of the KC-135 remains excellent. Newer isn't always better, but it is often more expensive.

The four engine KC-135 carries 90 tons of fuel and can transfer up to 68 tons. Consider that a B-52 carries over 140 tons of jet fuel, an F-15, over five tons. A KC-767 carries about as much fuel as the KC-135. The European firm Airbus, is offering the KC-30, based on the Airbus 330-300, which normally sells for $160 million each. The KC-30 carries 20 percent more fuel than the KC-767, and more cargo pallets (26 versus 19).

The KC-135 has long made itself useful carrying cargo and passengers, as well as fuel, and both the KC-767 and KC-30 have more capacity for this. Another option is a tanker based on the larger Boeing 777-200LR, which sells for about $230 million each. This KC-777 would have 65 percent more fuel capacity than the KC-767, and 95 percent more cargo capacity. Bigger is sometimes better if you're a flying gas station. The KC-767 was developed partly because it is about the same size as the KC-135 (wingspan is 156 feet, ten more than the KC-135). The wingspan of the KC-777 would be 213 feet. Moreover, it would take about three years to develop the KC-777, while the KC-767 is ready to go now, and the KC-30 will enter service with Australia next year. Using the KC-777 would reduce the number of tankers needed from 179 to 120, or less, and be cheaper in the long run. So many choices, and no one in authority is, as yet, willing to make a decision on this.

 

[aesop081]

The USAF needs to select the KC-767 right now and in three year's switch to the KC-777. The USAF operates 2 types of tankers the 737 and the KC-10 so I dont see a problem with two tanker types.

The KC-135 Stratotanker is based on the Boeing 707....not 737.  The whole USAF tanker program has been a political mess from the start, i hope they get themselves out of it

 

[tomahawk6]

I stand corrected. The 737 doesnt look anything like a 707. ;D

 

[MarkOttawa]

Holy milch cow! AW&ST, Feb. 29
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/EADS02298.xml&headline=Northrop%20Grumman/EADS%20Win%20USAF%20Tanker%20Award&channel=defense

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 a total buy of 179 tankers to be dubbed KC-45A, is expected to result in a deal worth tens of billions of dollars and leading to a dozen or more new aircraft each year for several years 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.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

Quite right Mark.This award is punishment for Boeing and its not like Northrop is a foreign company.Its good to spread the work around.

 

[Bandit1]

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

Release No. 040208
February 29,2008

Air Force Announces Tanker Contract

WASHINGTON - Secretary of the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne, and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. Duncan J. McNab, announced the selection of Northrop Grumman Corporation, headquartered in Los Angeles, Calif., as the winner of the KC-X competition for development and procurement of up to 179 tanker aircraft for approximately $35 billion.

The initial contract for the newly-named KC-45 is for the system design and development of four test aircraft for $1.5B. This contract also includes five production options targeted for 64 aircraft at $10.6B.

"The tanker is our number one procurement priority right now. Buying the new KC-45A is a major step forward and another demonstration of our commitment to recapitalizing our Eisenhower-era inventory of these critical national assets. Today is not just important for the Air Force, however. It's important for the entire Joint military team, and important for our coalition partners as well. The KC-45A will revolutionize our ability to employ tankers and will ensure the Air Force's future ability to provide our nation with truly Global Vigilance, Reach, and Power," said General McNab.

"The tanker is the number one procurement priority for us right now. It is the first step in our critical commitment to recapitalize our aging fleet to move, supply, and position assets anywhere. In this global Air Force business, the critical element for air bridge, global Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, and global strike is the tanker," said General McNab.

The KC-45A will provide significantly greater air refueling capabilities than the current fleet of Eisenhower-era KC-135s it will begin replacing. For example, it will be able to refuel Air Force and Navy aircraft on every flight. These aircraft have different systems for receiving fuel and today the KC-135s must be set up for one or the other before takeoff. The KC-45A will be equipped for both systems on every flight and will also have connections for wing pods. When wing pods are installed, it can refuel two probe-equipped aircraft, such as Navy and many allied aircraft, at the same time. It can even be refueled in flight by other tankers.

The KC-45A will also have defensive systems that allow it to go into dangerous environments that we currently have to avoid. It will also supplement our airlift fleet by carrying cargo, passengers, and medical patients in a secondary role.

The KC-X source selection used a "best value" determination to select a winner based on five factors: Mission Capability, Proposal Risk, Past Performance, Cost/Price, and an Integrated Fleet Air Refueling Assessment (performance in a simulated war scenario). These five factors were developed after consulting with industry and were finalized prior to starting the competition. Considered together, these grading criteria ensured the Air Force maximized the capability delivered to the warfighter while optimizing the taxpayers' investment.

The Air Force followed a carefully structured process, designed to provide transparency, maintain integrity and promote fair competition. The Air Force met with offerors on numerous occasions to gain a thorough understanding of their proposals and provide feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. The Air Force also provided insight into government cost estimates throughout the process instead of waiting until the post-decision debrief. The competitors indicated they've been very pleased with the degree of communication.

The evaluation team was comprised of experts covering a broad spectrum of specialties from acquisition to operations and was hand-picked from across the USAF and other government agencies.

As part of the process, the Air Force will now provide a written notice to both the selected and not-selected and offer to provide a de-brief on their bid proposals. To maintain the integrity of that process, the Air Force will be unable to provide additional information about the proposals and contract.

"Today's announcement is the culmination of years of tireless work and attention to detail by our Acquisition professionals and source selection team, who have been committed to maintaining integrity, providing transparency, and promoting a fair competition for this critical aircraft program," said Secretary Wynne. "Through these efforts we believe we will provide a higher-value resource to the warfighter and the taxpayer."

 

[Sherwood4459]

Is there any reason you couldn't have a mixed buy.  It is all well and good that you have two competitors but when you choose a single source you have granted that company a monoply for whatever system you're talking about.  If in the future Northrop Grumman-Airbus has problems with quality or cost or delays,  you can't go to the refueling tanker store down the street, it would take some time for someone else to start up.  I know the theory is that a single big buy will have economy of scale that will reduce the unit price,  but this the government we're talking about where on-time/on cost seems to be the exception.   If you have two production lines open and one company say "we're sorry but the cost seems to more than we thought-- GIVE US MORE MONEY!!!"  If you have a really pressing need for the system, do you really have a choice but to give in.   On the other hand if you have two production lines open, you could tell the company, "Oh really-  your competitor doesn't seem to be having problems, so instead of a 50-50 buy this year, we are going with 75-25-  you get the 25---Let us know when you straighten out the problem"  It would work to keep the price down.  You couldn't do it with everything but this buy seems to be big enough that you could make it work.

Also, the Northrop Grumman-Airbus is bigger, more fuel etc, but "Boeing claimed its 767 was all-American, cheaper to operate, could fly into smaller airfields and would take up less ramp space."  It seems that if you would have more flexibility with a mixed buy.