KC-X goes to Northrop/EADS

[swerve]

Well, they had to if they wanted NG/EADS to participate. The alternative was a sole source/no bid contract. If that was the intent, they should have done so.

Legal reasons for sole source contracts include:

1. only one firm has a product that will meet the projects needs or only one firm can do the work;
2. the existence of an unusual and compelling urgency;
3. for purposes of industrial mobilization or expert services;
4. an international agreement;
5. sole source is authorized or required by law, e.g., socio-economic programs;
6. national security; and
7. the public interest.


Since they did put the contract out for tender, they forfeited above arguments and have to evaluate bids on merit.

The odd thing about this is that back in 2001, when Boeing was (temporarily)corruptly awarded a contract to supply 767 tankers, it could be argued that 1. applied. If Boeing had played it straight, & the Boeing supporters in the DoD & USAF hadn't behaved like cheerleaders for Team Boeing, but at least pretended to evaluate Boeings bid properly, Boeing would have - and rightly, IMO, at the time - got the sale without any dirty dealing. Amazing, that they should be so addicted to fixing deals that they did it for a deal where it wasn't necessary, & ended up losing it as a result.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Aussie Digger]

Sounds right except that after they re-wrote it the first time, EADS couldn't meet the requirements. EADS complained, threatened not to participate, so they re-wrote it a second time. Not surprising that EADS won isn't it?

EADS won because it's plane carries more fuel and can off-load more fuel. Carries more people, more cargo and can carry more aeromedical evacuees.

It can fly further, it cruises at a higher speed and can operate from a shorter runway. More A330's can fit into a congested hardstand when compared to 767's and it presents less technical risk.

EADS could offer 49x platforms in-service by 2012, compared to Boeing's 20 odd aircraft.

The KC-30B is an off the shelf platform. The KC-767 offered by Boeing is a "mix and match" of various 767 variants that has never been produced before. The risk of "off the shelf" versus "never built before" seems to favour EADS too, in my humble opinion.

All this other talk is simply fluff. Boeing didn't offer a sufficiently capable aircraft. EADS/Northrop Grumman did. Arguments about a KC-777 or whatever are nonsense too. EADS could have offered a MORE capable aircraft too if that's what the requirements dictacted...

Out of what WAS offered, the KC-30B was the clearly more capable aircraft and was selected accordingly. I like many of Boeing's products, but the KC-767 doesn't cut it for me.

 

[swerve]

...
Out of what WAS offered, the KC-30B was the clearly more capable aircraft and was selected accordingly. I like many of Boeing's products, but the KC-767 doesn't cut it for me.

1. Agreed.

2. But I still reckon more 767 tankers will be sold. However, I reckon most will be conversions of secondhand aircraft, like the tanker Colombia has on order. Most of the operators of small numbers of tankers (sometimes just one), don't have the budget for new top-grade tankers. Some make do with KC-130s or the like as their only tankers (sometimes more suitable, if you expect to have to operate out of poor airfields), but quite a few have converted 707s, & might be looking to replace them with "new" converted used airliners.

Marshalls of Cambridge & IAI in Israel both offer 767 conversions, & I expect there are others out there who'll do it. The big edge 767s have over used A330s is price, & there are more 767s than A310s out there to be converted, so unless someone does an A300 tanker conversion, sales of Airbus tanker conversions (rather than new-build for major air forces) may be limited.

Embraer will offer a "KC-390" if the C-390 goes ahead. Like the A400, all C-390s will be plumbed for tanking, so all that would be needed is a hose kit. Might be a contender for KC-130 replacements.

 

[Aussie Digger]

1. Agreed.

2. But I still reckon more 767 tankers will be sold. However, I reckon most will be conversions of secondhand aircraft, like the tanker Colombia has on order. Most of the operators of small numbers of tankers (sometimes just one), don't have the budget for new top-grade tankers. Some make do with KC-130s or the like as their only tankers (sometimes more suitable, if you expect to have to operate out of poor airfields), but quite a few have converted 707s, & might be looking to replace them with "new" converted used airliners.

Marshalls of Cambridge & IAI in Israel both offer 767 conversions, & I expect there are others out there who'll do it. The big edge 767s have over used A330s is price, & there are more 767s than A310s out there to be converted, so unless someone does an A300 tanker conversion, sales of Airbus tanker conversions (rather than new-build for major air forces) may be limited.

Embraer will offer a "KC-390" if the C-390 goes ahead. Like the A400, all C-390s will be plumbed for tanking, so all that would be needed is a hose kit. Might be a contender for KC-130 replacements.

If the KC-30B is confirmed for the US tanker, it will be the biggest selling tanker on the planet. The US tanker fleet dwarfs the rest of the world's combined fleet...

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yup. It is also more expensive. For the same price, couldn't the USAF afford more KC767s instead which would in total have the same capacity, cargo, medivac and perhaps retire more KC-135s earlier?

Would it end up with A330s being underutilised because the number of evacuees or cargo doesn't justify the load? Esp in medivac cases, don't expect anyone to wait for full loads...

The USAF isn't saying that the KC-767 cannot fulfil its requirements because it can. The USAF is saying that the airbus is a better aircraft. Accordingly, if the KC-767 meets the requirements, wouldn't the risk of overkill be higher?

Even the US cannot get enough airlift capacity. What many over look is that these aircraft are "Multi-role Tanker Transports" rather than simply "tankers".

I do not think "overkill" is anywhere NEAR applicable for this contest... A KC-787 or KC-380 perhaps. Not an A330 based aircraft...

As to cost, I can't see it being significantly different.

Also, when one looks at fuel load and use, delivery is also a major factor. I think when one looks at tanker ops, having more tankers is actually better as more planes can refuel at the same time rather than fewer tankers refueling fewer planes at a time even if the fewer tankers can provide more fuel. I'm not so sure that the Airbus represents the best value.

The initial contract is to provide 179x aircraft. Presuming the contract goes ahead only 179 of the KC-767 or KC-30B will be purchased. The KC-767 allows the US to save a few bucks, but also allows it to lose capability. The alleged cheaper cost doesn't allow in increase in the number of aircraft to be purchased.

However production schedules effect cost too. The sooner the KC-X is in-service, the sooner the much more expensive KC-135 can start to be retired. Once again the win goes to EADS...

As per above, it is not that the KC-767 cannot fulfil the requirements. Shorter runways is not a concern for the USAF. I'm not so sure that the A330 poses less of a technical risk. The 767 is a proven aircraft too.

It might not be a requirement, but it allows the USAF a greater flexibility in it's employment of the aircraft and therefore is important.

The 767 is a proven aircraft. However the version chosen by Boeing is not an off the shelf 767. The 767 they chose to put forward contains elements from virtually every 767 variant that has ever been made. The aircraft requires a lengthy test program just to get the airframe right, let alone the boom, advanced refuelling controls, EW systems etc.

The KC-30B is virtually the same spec that Australia, England and UAE are getting, is an "off the shelf" platform, not a mixture of differing variants of the baseline aircraft.

How far is that a concern? Could Boeing ramp up production if that's a concern? of course it could.

Boeing knew of the Grumman/EADS delivery schedule proposal yet didn't even attempt to meet it. It cannot "ramp up production" because the variant they offered is not IN production...

It is important because A) the KC-135's are RAPIDLY running out of airframe time and B) as I've already mentioned, the cost of operating such an old aircraft is enormous...

The Italian AF and Japanese AF doesn't share your view.

And? The USAF, RAAF, RAF and UAEAF does.

Btw, why don't you check and see how the Italian and Japanese KC-767's are going in their contracted delivery schedule?

You'll find it ain't too flash and Boeing is quite a ways behind... Says a lot about the "risk" to me.

Actually, I'm surprised people can regard a plane which has a far worse fuel consumption, utilising a new fuel-pump system that has never been deployed in any other aircraft to be a "clearly" more capable aircraft.

You are wrong. The EADS boom is a development of the AAR system Germany operates in it's A310 based refuellers.

For myself, I find myself with insufficient data to make a conclusion at this time esp when I'm not privy to the complete requirements. Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the USAF is wrong. Indeed, I would normally assume that the tender process is transparent.

I also have no sympathy with Boeing. They deserved to lose the contract. Just my reasons for them losing is different from what the USAF says.

Here is a nice little chart that explains most things about this program. It's wrong in 2 areas, or at least dated, 1) is the claim about runway length. USAF have confirmed the KC-30B is superior in this regards and B) the KC-30B HAS conducted a wet fuel transfers now.

 

[Magoo]

Also, when one looks at fuel load and use, delivery is also a major factor. I think when one looks at tanker ops, having more tankers is actually better as more planes can refuel at the same time rather than fewer tankers refueling fewer planes at a time even if the fewer tankers can provide more fuel. I'm not so sure that the Airbus represents the best value.

As AD points out, the RFP didn't ask "give as many tankers as you can for $40 billion", it said "we want 179 aircraft", so obviously the more capable tanker will be selected if all other things are equal?!?!

You are wrong. The EADS boom is a development of the AAR system Germany operates in it's A310 based refuellers.

Sorry AD - the German/Canadian A310s don't have booms yet. The EADS-owned A310 testbed and the first KC-30B are the only aircraft flying with EADS' boom.

Actually, I'm surprised people can regard a plane which has a far worse fuel consumption, utilising a new fuel-pump system that has never been deployed in any other aircraft to be a "clearly" more capable aircraft.

The A330 uses about 8% more fuel than the 767, but lifts more than 25% more and carries it about 25% further! Boeing's boom is also a brand new design with no carry over from its KC-135/KC-10 booms, and first delivery of an operational boom was only made last month with Japan's first KC-767.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Grand Danois]

According to this document the A330-200 uses 2220 m (7284 ft) of runway.

Boeing 767-200 1800 m
Boeing 767-200ER 2620 m (8596 ft)
Boeing 767-300 2713 m
Boeing 767-400 3383 m

I understand that the 767 variant Boeing proposed is an improved version of the 767-200ER, though it's unclear to me what the implication is...

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Grand Danois]

This is what Boeing believes...

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/index.html

This is what Boeing issued wrt B767-200ER take-off (see pg 14 of pdf or 58 on page). It depends on the weight, use of flaps, engines etc.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec3.pdf

Oh dear, this is not simple...

 

[swerve]

...

Also, when one looks at fuel load and use, delivery is also a major factor. I think when one looks at tanker ops, having more tankers is actually better as more planes can refuel at the same time rather than fewer tankers refueling fewer planes at a time even if the fewer tankers can provide more fuel. ....

This is something the USAF has a collective mental block on. The cheap & easy way round is to stop procuring fighters & tactical strike aircraft with receptacles & fit probes to them all, & to retrofit underwing hoses to every KC-135 that'll remain in service long enough to merit it, & probes to the newer F-15/F-16. Immediate near-doubling of the number of aircraft that can be refuelled at once!

At least the KC-45 will have multiple refuelling points - but only the USN, USMC, & non-US fighters will be able to use more than one at a time.

 

[swerve]

...

If I remember correctly, the B767 has a 6750nm range compared to the A330-200 which has a 6600nm range.....

The absolute range doesn't matter. What matters is the distance from base at which it can deliver a useful load of fuel, & the range figures for the standard commercial versions don't tell us that. Too many variables to even try a guess at it from them.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[kato]

I'd presume they don't go by an average sortie rate, but by an intended sortie rate support number. Which could be... higher.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[radiosilence]

Here is a brief summary of Boeing's version of this whole episode which i gather from reading multiple sources.

Boeing claimed one of the main reasons it fielded the smaller 767 instead of the larger 777 was because it is cheaper to operate and can land at smaller bases closer to combat zones.

One month after the RFP, the Airforce made changes in the RFP which essentially took away some of the advantages the 767 had such as landing on smaller airbases. Boeing claimed the changes were clearly intended to accommodate larger aircraft which would favored Northrop-EADS. According the airforce the changes made to the RFP after it was issued was done mainly to accommodate Northrop-EADS, which was threatening not to bid again.

Here is a comparsion of both aircraft.

 

[Sea Toby]

Boeing attempted to bypass the selection process the first time using the 767 because they wanted to keep the line open. Boeing used the 767 the second time for the same reason. The only problem is that with a selection process its obvious that the Airbus is a better plane. The better plane won. And as for the 767 being cheaper, unfortunately, Boeing has a long record of not bringing projects on time or on budget.

Boeing has been very successful in the past, up to the point Congress has to support opposing company's aircraft to stop Boeing from becoming a monopoly. Yes, Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting still exists.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted