Air Force Tanker contract goes to....

[Steve]

In a conversation with a friend who is an Air Force fellow, I was told that the Airbus/Northrop entrant was too large for many existing ramps, and that if they went with that design, they'd have to use tugs where now, and with the 767-based entrant, they do not.

In contrast, talking to some tanker pilots I know, the argument for the KC-45 was, in being larger, had enough additional capacity that fewer airframes would be needed to support the fleet reducing overall maintence demands, could stay on station longer servicing more aircraft, and travel farther to the rendezvous point.

 

[Tom-D]

God knows, they could have made use of the jobs in that area.

Stand by,,,,, the next time the Boeing union goes on strike.... it just may happen they will be looking for a right to work state.

Remember they moved the corp. head quarters to Ill. when Wa. tried to screw them on taxes.

They moved a lot of parts that the back shops were making off shore the last time the union went on strike.

They have a history of retaliation toward the union every time they go on strike.

 

[weilke]

Stand by,,,,, the next time the Boeing union goes on strike.... it just may happen they will be looking for a right to work state.

They have already moved the 787 assembly to Charleston,SC. Sadly, they put that plant onto a very constrained lot pinched between the interstate, the civilian side of the airport and a runway safety area without many options to expand in the future.

Remember they moved the corp. head quarters to Ill. when Wa. tried to screw them on taxes.

It seemed odd to move from WA to IL, that frying pan and fire thing.

They have a history of retaliation toward the union every time they go on strike.

Retaliation is such an angry word. They 'adjusted their geographic footprint to react to a changing human resources environment ' :wink2: .

 

[flyersfan31]

In contrast, talking to some tanker pilots I know, the argument for the KC-45 was, in being larger, had enough additional capacity that fewer airframes would be needed to support the fleet reducing overall maintence demands, could stay on station longer servicing more aircraft, and travel farther to the rendezvous point.

The facts, while interesting, are irrelevant.

Boeing was absolutely desperate to keep the 767 line open. They just got a little too greedy in the first go-around, which probably would have been a slam-dunk.

We had KC135s and KC10s for years. Why not a KC767 and KC330 combo??

ALTHOUGH, the odds of the French buying, say, F/A18 or JSF are nil.

Maybe if EADS promised to keep all proceeds reinvested in the US, they'd have won.

Meanwhile, this stupid second JSF engine debate rages on....

 

[TMetzinger]

So is Northrop, the prime contractor on the competing product.



That is my point. Very little difference between the two.

Northrop is no longer part of the Tanker bid. They made that decision after the last RFP came out.

There are significant differences in the aircraft in terms of their payload/range/runway parameters. The USAF could make a decision which one offered a better value, but then those "values" would be challenged by the loser camp.

The Pentagon procurement process is a sterling example of how striving for perfection ends up destroying the good solutions.

 

[tonycondon]

The facts, while interesting, are irrelevant.

Boeing was absolutely desperate to keep the 767 line open. They just got a little too greedy in the first go-around, which probably would have been a slam-dunk.

We had KC135s and KC10s for years. Why not a KC767 and KC330 combo??

ALTHOUGH, the odds of the French buying, say, F/A18 or JSF are nil.

Maybe if EADS promised to keep all proceeds reinvested in the US, they'd have won.

Meanwhile, this stupid second JSF engine debate rages on....

we were trying to figure out here the other day where they still fly KC10's? Thought there might be one squadron left or something like that?

 

[Steve]

we were trying to figure out here the other day where they still fly KC10's? Thought there might be one squadron left or something like that?

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=109

The KC-10A is operated by the 305th Air Mobility Wing at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J.; and the 60th Air Mobility Wing, Travis Air Force Base, Calif. Air Force Reserve Associate units are assigned to the 349th Air Mobility Wing at Travis, and the 514th Air Mobility Wing at JB McGuire.

As of the date of that fact sheet, 11/5/2010, there were 59 KC-10s in active service.

 

[ScottM]

we were trying to figure out here the other day where they still fly KC10's? Thought there might be one squadron left or something like that?

Mostly out of Travis in CA.

The discussion about the larger Airbus tanker should also be measured against the failure of the KC10 program. If anything that showed that the idea of the bigger tanker really just was not useful for the types of mission that the tankers were flying. Considering that between the introduction of the KC10 and the massive reduction in long range strategic flights that it was meant to support, why would we need a replacement for that when what the USAF really needs is something that had the more theater specific refueling missions.

 

[SCCutler]

Which is an argument that magically appeared after the award had been made to Northrop/Airbus, in part based on the fact that it IS a larger plane :wink2: .

Frankly speaking, I never saw this issue raised in any public forum; it was simply something a lifer USAF guy I know, one intimately familiar with tanker and transport ops, raised up as an observation after the first round in the whole kerfuffle.

 

[weilke]

ALTHOUGH, the odds of the French buying, say, F/A18 or JSF are nil.

EADS is actually a dutch company, Airbus is one of their subsidiaries.

So while the french are notoriously chauvinistic in their military hardware purchases, the other partners in the system such as the Netherlands (F16, Patriot, CH47, AH64, C130....), the british (C130,C17,F35/YSF) germany (F4, F104, Patriot, UH-1), Italy (F16, C130) and Spain (F/A-18, C130, S76) certainly dont discriminate against US sourced hardware.

Maybe if EADS promised to keep all proceeds reinvested in the US, they'd have won. .

So the international stock holders of Boeing should forgo their dividends or stock appreciation based on the tanker deal as well ?

EADS was planning to build an entire production line in the Us which would have further strengthened the position of the US in the global aircraft market. From a purely economic perspective, not bringing EADS over the pond is a loss.

 

[wanttaja]

From what I heard about this, Boeing lost the initial contract because of the entitlement mentality. They expected to win no matter what they offered, so they off-loaded old 767 that airlines no longer wanted. It allowed them to keep the production line open. Air Force procurement people were livid when they saw how Boeing treated them, the customer. In contrast Airbus proposed their newest, most advanced airplane, which could haul more gas and used less gas, so it stayed aloft longer.

Sounds like poppycock to me. Proposals are required to be evaluated based on the published criteria. If a company had submitted a proposal utilizing rebuilt DC-3s and 55-gallon drums, and it met all the evaluation criteria and was the lowest bid, the Air Force would have been required to give them the contract. That's how the acquisition regulations work.

My understanding is that the GAO set aside the previous award for precisely those reasons: The Air Force used evaluation criteria that was not in accordance with that provided to both potential contractors.

There are some subjective criteria, but they're mostly based on technology readiness level (TRL) criteria. If such criteria were in the RFP, EADS would have scored lower as it was proposing to build a production line, vs. Boeing having one already in operation. Boeing has also already sold tanker versions of the same airframe to other countries; don't believe EADS has.

I wonder if EADS really intended to win the contract. By investing a few million dollars in proposal cost (which mostly had already been spent on the Northrup proposal), they forced Boeing to bid the program for a lot less money than they could have otherwise demanded.

(Disclaimer: I work for Boeing, but have no connection to the tanker program).

Ron Wanttaja

 

[EvilEagle]

Mostly out of Travis in CA.

The discussion about the larger Airbus tanker should also be measured against the failure of the KC10 program. If anything that showed that the idea of the bigger tanker really just was not useful for the types of mission that the tankers were flying. Considering that between the introduction of the KC10 and the massive reduction in long range strategic flights that it was meant to support, why would we need a replacement for that when what the USAF really needs is something that had the more theater specific refueling missions.

I'll offer a different opinion. Every time we take a squadron somewhere we can either get a 135 (or two) and a C-17 - OR we can get 2 KC-10's. The KC-10 is by far the preferred tanker for the fighter squadron movements. It carries TONS more fuel and it can carry a great deal of cargo and pax. The 135 is a workhorse for sure, but it just can't do what we need it to do. Our strat airlift (C5/C17) is so busy that we can't ever get a 17 for a movement, so we have to contract it if we are going over seas or we have to ship our stuff if we are going somewhere on the same continent.

Why can a KC-10 not do the theater specific refueling missions? It's got the gas!

 

[Bob Noel]

Why can a KC-10 not do the theater specific refueling missions? It's got the gas!

um, we've go around 50 or so KC-10 tankers and what, 500? KC-135 tankers.

Plus I believe the KC-135's have better CNS/ATM equipment thereby making it easier to fly worldwide.

 

[ScottM]

Why can a KC-10 not do the theater specific refueling missions? It's got the gas!

I was told that the reason the KC10 was to be used for strategic refueling missions while the KC135s would be used in more forward or tactical specific theater operations. The reason for this was the size and capacity of the KC10 made it better suited for larger airfields and it could fly much further with greater payloads. Much of the KC135 maintenance support was easier to perform in theater because of the higher amount of 135 variants. Having the KC10 deployed in a theater meant that logistically one also had to support it with extra people and spare parts.

 

[EvilEagle]

I was told that the reason the KC10 was to be used for strategic refueling missions while the KC135s would be used in more forward or tactical specific theater operations. The reason for this was the size and capacity of the KC10 made it better suited for larger airfields and it could fly much further with greater payloads. Much of the KC135 maintenance support was easier to perform in theater because of the higher amount of 135 variants. Having the KC10 deployed in a theater meant that logistically one also had to support it with extra people and spare parts.

That support piece may have been true for a while, but now the 135 is really the only 707 derivative forward deployed constantly. JSTARS is gone a bit, RJ is gone a lot, but they usually aren't at the same bases as the 135. I know that we use 10's a lot in the sandbox, but mostly the 10's are used for the long haul because they can do both, and the 135's aren't as good at long distance + cargo & pax. 10's do both well, 135's only do the short stuff really well.

It usually works out that 135's do the more forward stuff, but it's not for lack of capability of the 10. We just couldn't afford more of them. The really are a great airplane. (and for the record, refueling from a 135 is easier, so it's not just because i'm partial to the 10).

We don't have any tankers at bases that can't support big airplanes. Here in Bagram we have C-5's, 747, IL-76, 135's, etc, etc. The 10 def needs more ramp space than a 135, but that's usually (not always) not a huge deal. IME.

 

[olasek]

EADS is actually a dutch company, Airbus is one of their subsidiaries.

What matters really is not where some office buildings are located but what is the respective national participation in Airbus of member countries. And no one can argue that France as a country has the largest stake in Airbus. On top of that the design center and head-office is in Toulouse. Although many European countries have their share, German share is not small either but clearly French own the largest 'pie' and Airbus consortium (groupement d'intérêt économique) operates under the French law. And Airbus is really over 80% of EADS. So saying that EADS is a Dutch company or that Airbus is nothing more than one of a few divisions of EADS is simply smoke and mirrors.

 

[weilke]

So saying that EADS is a Dutch company or that Airbus is nothing more than one of a few divisions of EADS is simply smoke and mirrors.

Out of 56966 people working for Airbus (2008 annual report), 22663 work in France, 19057 in Germany, 9673 in the UK and the rest scattered around europe, china and the US.

Btw, the GIE ceased to exist in 2000.

 

[Steve]

Rep. Norm Dicks, a Democrat from Washington state, advocated a change in the way the Air Force evaluated bids from Boeing and rival Airbus, and that helped Boeing win the $35-billion contract.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-...eed:+latimes/business+(L.A.+Times+-+Business)

 

[Bob Noel]

Seems like the change supposedly advocated actually makes sense. 25 years seems to be a little short. The KC-135 is 50+ years old and the KC-10 is 30 years old.

 

[SCCutler]

Out of curiosity - how is it that the first delivery will not occur until 2017? It's not a new airframe design.

If we had exercised that kind of determination during WW-II, we'd be speaking German and Japanese.

 

[ScottM]

What matters really is not where some office buildings are located but what is the respective national participation in Airbus of member countries.

I agree. That is why I laugh when people on TV mention "Chicago based Boeing." Yeah sure we have their corporate HQ in Chicago but that is about it. just a couple of hundred employees. The real work is all done in Washington and other places.