F-15 Eagle
New Member
So what did this new tanker is killed or what?
KC-X goes to Northrop/EADS
- Thread starter Magoo
- Start date
shrike
New Member
The current competiton is over. The next one is postponed at least until the next administration, but the tanker replacement program is still going on.
A military analyst once said: 10% of the weapons procurement program is about technical specifications of the weapon system the other 90% is about economical and political gain. I tend to agree.
Not cancelled-the press reports indicate that the Bush Administration just does not want to make such a contraversial decision.
http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3717758&c=EUR&s=AIR
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usafs-kcx-aerial-tanker-rfp-03009/
http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3717758&c=EUR&s=AIR
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usafs-kcx-aerial-tanker-rfp-03009/
F-15 Eagle
New Member
WTF they already maid a decision so why are they postponing it? Our tankers are 40 years old and need to be replace no matter how well they are maintained well all of the politicians are too busy bickering and nothing ever gets done.
ColdWarrior
New Member
I am inclined to agree with that statement. With the election two months off I am not surprised that the party in power simply throws it's hands in the air and shirks it's duty.
Politicians. Can't shoot em and can make all the worthless bastiges dog catchers...
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
The simple fact about the tanker program is a few law makers are getting all pissed off about the darling child Boeing missing out on the contract. The whole GAO ruling an unfair selection process is just to protect American business and is also due to the French fear.
I think the Northrop/EADS design is the most suitable for Americas needs and will have high commonality with other countries that have also selected the tanker or its smaller A310 brother. The world is voting with there feet and walking towards the relatively new Northrop offer rather then going with Boeing's older offering which is already having problems in Japan and Italy (I know that the USAF's proposed birds would be a different breed but you got to look at the history of similar projects within each respective company, i mean boeing has a problematic KC-767 program and lost the first contract due to bribes etc., Northrop/EADS on the other hand are having few problems with there offering A330 and A310 offerings (The A310 tanker is already flying with the Luftwaffe)). America has to see this and realize they have to get whats best for there war fighters, not whats best for a multinational company any way the tankers will be built in America any way.
Just as a side note. If Boeing really wanted the contract they should go with a radical deign. I don't know if the B-787 has the performance required for a tanker but it seems to me that such an aircraft, which would be new high-tech with a long production and spare parts life time in front of it would make a much more suitable replacement for the KC-135 and is more directly comparable with the Northrop/EADS Bid. If they did that and made it deliverable on time. They could then Play the home grown American card and all would be happy.
Cheers
I think the Northrop/EADS design is the most suitable for Americas needs and will have high commonality with other countries that have also selected the tanker or its smaller A310 brother. The world is voting with there feet and walking towards the relatively new Northrop offer rather then going with Boeing's older offering which is already having problems in Japan and Italy (I know that the USAF's proposed birds would be a different breed but you got to look at the history of similar projects within each respective company, i mean boeing has a problematic KC-767 program and lost the first contract due to bribes etc., Northrop/EADS on the other hand are having few problems with there offering A330 and A310 offerings (The A310 tanker is already flying with the Luftwaffe)). America has to see this and realize they have to get whats best for there war fighters, not whats best for a multinational company any way the tankers will be built in America any way.
Just as a side note. If Boeing really wanted the contract they should go with a radical deign. I don't know if the B-787 has the performance required for a tanker but it seems to me that such an aircraft, which would be new high-tech with a long production and spare parts life time in front of it would make a much more suitable replacement for the KC-135 and is more directly comparable with the Northrop/EADS Bid. If they did that and made it deliverable on time. They could then Play the home grown American card and all would be happy.
Cheers
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re: Tanker thoughts
After a year and a half of reflection, with the new tanker comp and NG's decision not to participate, decided to put down some of my thoughts.
(a) Size of tanker
It is illuminating that the DoD decided to put in a requirement for a KC-135-size capability. The arguments regarding the additional benefits of a large tanker appear to have been rejected. It appears to also suggest the empirical data on tanker offload experience has convinced the DoD that the extra size is a luxury rather than a necessity.
(b) Transport capability
Again, transport capability has now been downplayed. With the termination of even additional C-17, clearly additional transport capability is not a priority.
(c) Cost of the tanker
Despite all the claims that the A-330 is a cheaper plane, the decision by NG not to compete clarifies comments made previously regarding costs. If the A-330 was truly a cheaper aircraft, competing in a comp where cost is the main factor should have been a game winner.
The fact that NG refuses to bid suggests otherwise. The argument that the comp favours a smaller plane is disingenuous. Size is not a factor rather no points were given for exceeding size requirements. However, cost is clearly a primary factor. The acknowledgement that a smaller plane entails lower cost thus justifies the original analysis.
This also raises questions the way costs was computed in the previous comp and justifies the GAO decision on the way the previous comp was conducted.
(d) Challenge?
No one passes on a challenge in a US$35 billion comp esp if one thinks there's a good chance for success.
OSD/DOD is fundamentally right in that one can't challenge the requirements of the customer. My view is that NG doesn't have a chance. Once DoD decided to go on a cost basis, the game is up.
After a year and a half of reflection, with the new tanker comp and NG's decision not to participate, decided to put down some of my thoughts.
(a) Size of tanker
It is illuminating that the DoD decided to put in a requirement for a KC-135-size capability. The arguments regarding the additional benefits of a large tanker appear to have been rejected. It appears to also suggest the empirical data on tanker offload experience has convinced the DoD that the extra size is a luxury rather than a necessity.
(b) Transport capability
Again, transport capability has now been downplayed. With the termination of even additional C-17, clearly additional transport capability is not a priority.
(c) Cost of the tanker
Despite all the claims that the A-330 is a cheaper plane, the decision by NG not to compete clarifies comments made previously regarding costs. If the A-330 was truly a cheaper aircraft, competing in a comp where cost is the main factor should have been a game winner.
The fact that NG refuses to bid suggests otherwise. The argument that the comp favours a smaller plane is disingenuous. Size is not a factor rather no points were given for exceeding size requirements. However, cost is clearly a primary factor. The acknowledgement that a smaller plane entails lower cost thus justifies the original analysis.
This also raises questions the way costs was computed in the previous comp and justifies the GAO decision on the way the previous comp was conducted.
(d) Challenge?
No one passes on a challenge in a US$35 billion comp esp if one thinks there's a good chance for success.
OSD/DOD is fundamentally right in that one can't challenge the requirements of the customer. My view is that NG doesn't have a chance. Once DoD decided to go on a cost basis, the game is up.
that's one interpretation
another interpretation is that the requirements HAD to be low enough for the 767 to compete because that's the ONLY plane Boeing had that could even begin to be cost competitive
It was in the past. What changed? Did their requirements suddenly go away? That's right, the USAF got the memo from Congress that it doesn't matter what you need, there is only one acceptable choice.
The KC-30 is in fact a cheaper plane, $15-20 million cheaper in fact. The problem came with how lifecycle, specifically fuel, costs are calculated over 40 years.
The USAF assumed that the two planes would fly the exact same number of hours, which their own figures show to be a lie. The KC-30 is more capable and doesn't need as many planes/sorties to perform the same mission, but that was not taken into account on the fuel costs.
FTFY
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IIRC, one of the GAO issues with the KC-X contract being awarded to NG the 2nd time round, was that NG was given extra points for the increased amount of fuel the larger A330 could carry vs. the 767. The GAO noted that Boeing was correct in that according to the programme criteria, the ability to carry additional fuel beyond the amount specified was neither a positive or negative. As such, for NG to win the contract based upon such a feature which Boeing was not aware would be a consideration would be considered unfair, particularly if Boeing could have offered other, larger aircraft for consideration as the future tanker.that's one interpretation
another interpretation is that the requirements HAD to be low enough for the 767 to compete because that's the ONLY plane Boeing had that could even begin to be cost competitive
It was in the past. What changed? Did their requirements suddenly go away? That's right, the USAF got the memo from Congress that it doesn't matter what you need, there is only one acceptable choice.
The KC-30 is in fact a cheaper plane, $15-20 million cheaper in fact. The problem came with how lifecycle, specifically fuel, costs are calculated over 40 years.
The USAF assumed that the two planes would fly the exact same number of hours, which their own figures show to be a lie. The KC-30 is more capable and doesn't need as many planes/sorties to perform the same mission, but that was not taken into account on the fuel costs.
FTFY
Now, for a straight comparison between two potential refueler aircraft, yes the KC-30 IMO would be a better refueler than a KC-767. Longer-ranged, greater fuel/refueling capacity, etc.
However, as has been often mentioned here on DT, it is the system-level, not platform-level, where things truly need to be compared, and this is where the KC-30 could be losing out to the KC-767.
Here is what I mean by this. The KC-30, being larger is able to offload a greater amount of fuel in a given sortie that a KC-767 would be able to. However, given how the USAF currently operates mid-air refuelers, What amount/volume of refueling is normally required for a tanking sortie? What is the expected amount for future sorties? If the amount of refueling done normally/most often is less than the max amount of fuel the KC-767 can carry, then any extra fuel capacity available to the KC-30 is nice, but not particularly important. Then next item of importance in such a system, is how many sorties to deliver x amount of fuel be sustained simultaneously, and how many are available for surge operations? In this case, if two different aircraft are both able to deliver x amount of fuel, then whichever aircraft which can be had in higher numbers for a given amount of money has the advantage.
If the competition was just about which aircraft could fly farther and deliver more fuel, than I would have expected KC-versions of the A380 and B747 would have been entered. Since the competition is not just about which aircraft can deliver the total amount of fuel, but also about how many different places aircraft can be refueled at the same time, then "bigger" is not necessarily "better".
Personally, I would have liked to see Boeing enter a tanker version of the 787 which I understand is to replace the B767 in civilian/commercial use, in place of the KC-767. The 787 as I understand it is to be significantly more advanced/efficient than most other airliners, but it does not seem to be sufficiently ready to be entered as contenders in military programmes.
-Cheers
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
I'd like to see what is the basis for saying the KC-30 is cheaper. Much less a link for $15-20mil cheaper. More misinformation?....
List price of the A-330
http://www.airbus.com/store/mm_repository/pdf/att00011726/media_object_file_ListPrices2008.pdf
List price of the Boeing 767
Boeing: Commercial Airplanes -- Jet Prices Home
What I also have is the GAO decision that states that the KC-30 was cheaper AFTER adding KC-767 penalties for failure to delivery past projects on time, life cycle costs and other adjustment factors etc but then the reason why it was cheaper was because it was calculated incorrectly (besides being unreasonable).
http://www.gao.gov/press/press-boeing2008jun18_3.pdf
"The Air Force’s evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors’ most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors’ specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported."
I disagree the DoD decided to go with boeing. I repeat my view. Once DoD decided to go on a cost basis, the game is up.
I'd like to see what is the basis for saying the KC-30 is cheaper. Much less a link for $15-20mil cheaper. More misinformation?....
List price of the A-330
http://www.airbus.com/store/mm_repository/pdf/att00011726/media_object_file_ListPrices2008.pdf
List price of the Boeing 767
Boeing: Commercial Airplanes -- Jet Prices Home
What I also have is the GAO decision that states that the KC-30 was cheaper AFTER adding KC-767 penalties for failure to delivery past projects on time, life cycle costs and other adjustment factors etc but then the reason why it was cheaper was because it was calculated incorrectly (besides being unreasonable).
http://www.gao.gov/press/press-boeing2008jun18_3.pdf
"The Air Force’s evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors’ most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors’ specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported."
I disagree the DoD decided to go with boeing. I repeat my view. Once DoD decided to go on a cost basis, the game is up.
One shouldn't think that that the only conclusion of NG/Airbus not entering the new competition is that they think they can't compete.
Such processes cost alot of money and it might very well be that in the eyes of NG/Airbus it isn't worth it. It is not impossible that the process would just go into another round if NG wins.
EADS has done this before in Norway when the Government asked for a new round of trials. They said it isn't worth it as the Government is already committed to one special product and just asks for new trials to satisfy the critics.
Such processes cost alot of money and it might very well be that in the eyes of NG/Airbus it isn't worth it. It is not impossible that the process would just go into another round if NG wins.
EADS has done this before in Norway when the Government asked for a new round of trials. They said it isn't worth it as the Government is already committed to one special product and just asks for new trials to satisfy the critics.
A long-winded, convoluted argument to try to deny the obvious: more is better.
But lest you fear I'm just making that up, the USAF IFARA score handles everything you mentioned in far greater detail than you could imagine and also concludes that the KC-30 is more capable
No, it was about VALUE.
The KC-30 was MORE CAPABLE and COST LESS.
A KC-747 might have been more capable, but would have surely flunked the 'cost less' part.
Tanker, 787, 747 « Leeham News and Comment
You're right, sorry for the misinformation, it was 'only' $12-$15 million cheaper
List price is meaningless for commercial airliners, no one pays list
If you look at what they complained about, it was very minor stuff. Stuff like not accounting for the fact that the KC-30 MIGHT need an extra battery shop constructed. Or that since the KC-30 carried more seats, the bases would need more seat storage. In the big picture, it was a rounding error.
The KC-30 was cheaper to buy but the extra fuel and milcon costs brought its lifecycle costs to practically the same as the KC-767. Whether it was slightly higher or slightly lower isn't very relevant as it's all within the margin of error trying to calculate costs 40 years in the future.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
lol. That's absolute ham regarding the so called cost price. Lee ham news as the credible source?
As the GAO has stated, the reason why the KC-30 was "cheaper" was solely because the DoD miscalculated.
Heck, let's just ignore what the air force said themselves. What liars (tongue in cheek)....
Air Force says Boeing plane cheaper: report - MarketWatch
lol. That's absolute ham regarding the so called cost price. Lee ham news as the credible source?
As the GAO has stated, the reason why the KC-30 was "cheaper" was solely because the DoD miscalculated.
Heck, let's just ignore what the air force said themselves. What liars (tongue in cheek)....
Air Force says Boeing plane cheaper: report - MarketWatch
As to this remark, I'm sure a $35 billion contract was overturned on just minor stuff. Genius.
Let's play nice folks......
Right, because they didn't include stuff like battery shops and seat storage.
I actually read the GAO report, not just some 3rd hand news report, so I do know what I'm talking about.
They said LIFECYCLE costs were cheaper. We were talking about ACQUISITION cost.
The KC-30 was and remains cheaper to buy.
Nevertheless even after the adjustments, the lifecycle costs were very, very close. It's just that difference was enough to switch it from slightly cheaper to slightly more expensive, allowing Boeing to claim it was cheaper through it's life.
But as I said, when you're trying to estimate costs 40 years out, it was all within the margin of error.
Cost was only one issue. If it had been the only issue it would have been overcome.
The deeper issue with the RFP was that it was never crystal clear exactly how the AF would award 'extra credit' for extra capabilities. The AF knew it liked the KC-30 better, but couldn't justify the way it weighted things according to the RFP.
Since the RFP itself was flawed, there was no way to recover and the whole competition had to be scrapped.
That RFP put the needs of the warfighter first. After repeatedly getting burned, the USAF decided to put the needs of the procurement team first in this RFP. That means very simple, pass/fail tests that leave no room to complain about how much certain features are weighted.
weasel1962
New Member
lol. I'll play nice. No stamina these days to go against "I say so, that's why its so" arguments.
First posted the link to the GAO report on page 8 which I'd repost again.
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.pdf
For those too lazy to re-read the entire report,
http://www.gao.gov/press/boeingstmt.pdf
I do find it funny how a person can cite a source which states project bid price (that ironically is based on the life cycle cost) as a source to substantiate that the cost is lower. Than claim that the life cycle cost is irrelevant cos we're talking about acquisition cost and ignore the 2 links that support the acquisition cost on the basis that no one pays list price. Best part of all, probably without realising it.
Humor truly makes one's day. Thanks.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Actually, that is not what I was suggesting. If that is the way one choses to interpret it, I obviously cannot control that, but it was not the direction I was going in at all.
What I was suggesting was that there are perhaps a few more factors than just which aircraft is larger, which can carry more tanking fuel, and which costs less to acquire per aircraft. Factors that are not public. Though for airfleet operations, the lifecycle operating costs would be an important factor for long-term planning. I readily admit I do know what or exactly how much these additional factors would be, but I seriously doubt that all the information regardin the various RFP is fully public domain, if for no reason other than it could give additional insight into future mission sortie/tempo capabilities.
From the political side, I honestly am not sure how much of the decision-making was about buying "American" as opposed to domestic production of an Airbus design. As I understand it, either programme would end up employing roughly the same number of American workers (an important domestic political consideration) with the chief difference revolving around where some of these workers were employed. Since it would involve selecting between different American production sites, both programmes would have advocates in Congress. Unless a Senator or Congressmen was willing to commit political/professional suicide, they would not oppose a federal programme which would could provide a number of manufacturing jobs for their respective district and exist for a number of terms (years).
The question ends up coming back to exactly what are the most important factors in the final RFP, and why (or how) did those factors get determines. From the announcement where NG is backing out of the KC-X programme, they feel that the scoring methodology is now set in such a way as to favour the KC-767 enough that it is not worth attempting to pursue the contract. I myself am not certain that the methodology was deliberately skewed, due to the GAO reports from 2008 criticizing the contract award to NG. The basis of that criticism was, as I mentioned before, the fact that NG was rewarded for greater fuel capacity, when such a consideration was not part of the RFP. If it had been a selection criteria for the RFP (apart from a minimum refueling capacity) then Boeing could have offered other airframes as refuelers instead of the 767 to meet the desired level of fuel.
I do find it curious though that the KC-45 was to carry ~25% more fuel than a legacy KC-135, but ~36% less fuel than a KC-10 Extenders which are still in service. The KC-767 OTOH carries about the same amount of fuel as the KC-135. It does make me think that for some reason, the fuel goal was around 200,000 lbs.
Lastly, as for what I can and cannot imagine, you do not know me well enough (at all, really) to state anything about that, so kindly do not attempt to do so.
-Cheers